Skip to main content
Download PDF

Intense pulsed-light treatment improves objective optical quality in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction

BMC Ophthalmology volume 23, Article number: 191 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To evaluate changes in objective optical quality following intense pulsed light (IPL) treatment combined with meibomian gland (MG) expression (MGX) in patients with MG dysfunction (MGD).

Methods

This retrospective cross-sectional study included MGD-related dry eye disease (DED) patients who received IPL treatment between March and December 2021 at Kim’s Eye Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Each patient underwent four sessions of IPL treatment using Lumenis M22 (Lumenis Ltd., Yokneam, Israel) and MGX at three-week intervals.

Results

This study included 90 eyes from 45 patients with MGD. The mean age was 52.3 ± 16.1 years (range, 20–75 years), and 53.3% (24/45) of patients were female. Compared with the baseline, all clinical symptoms and signs significantly improved after IPL treatment combined with MGX. All optical quality parameters obtained with an optical quality analysis system (OQAS: Visiometrics, Castelldefels, Spain) have improved significantly over the baseline (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In patients with MGD, IPL treatment combined with MGX improved the objective optical quality and clinical signs and symptoms of DED.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Dry eye disease (DED) caused by meibomian gland (MG) dysfunction (MGD) is a common disorder [1]. The prevalence of MGD in the general population is estimated to be 30.5 to 68.3% [2]. It is a multifactorial disorder that causes symptoms such as visual disturbance and ocular discomfort, in addition to instability of the tear film [3]. Tear film plays a vital role in ensuring good visual quality and preserving the decent optical quality [4, 5].

Well-maintained meibum lipids in tear film prevent evaporation and provide a smooth optical surface [6]. In patients with MGD, the meibum is more viscous and cannot properly seal the tear film on the eye to prevent evaporation [7]. Blurry vision associated with DED may be linked to increased optical aberrations that reduce the optical quality [8]. Another study assess the effect of eyedrops found they improved optical quality in DED patients [9]. Changes in tear film in the DED can cause irregularities in the corneal surface, and the DED exhibits an irregular distribution of tear film in the cornea [10]. This means that DED have more optical aberration than normal eyes [11].

In recent years, intense pulsed light (IPL) treatment has emerged as a useful treatment option for DED with MGD [12,13,14,15]. Numerous studies have documented significant improvements in parameters such as the ocular surface disease index (OSDI) score, corneal and conjunctival staining (CFS) score, Schirmer test value, meibomian gland expressibility (MGE), and tear break-up time (TBUT) following IPL treatment [15,16,17,18,19]. Additionally, improved subjective visual acuity (VA) and the quality of vision after IPL treatment has been reported in patients with DED [20, 21]. However, improvement in the objective optical quality following IPL treatment has not yet been evaluated. In this study, we investigated the effects of IPL treatment on the objective optical quality and symptoms of DED in patients with MGD.

Methods

Subjects

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Kim’s Eye Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea (2021-09-006) and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study on MGD-related DED patients who received IPL treatment between July and December 2021 at Kim’s Eye Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Considering the retrospective nature of the study and the use of de-identified patient data, the requirement for written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board of Kim’s Eye Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. The inclusion criteria were adults aged 20–80 years who met all three of the following criteria: OSDI score ≥ 13 points [22]; TBUT < 10 s for both eyes [23, 24]; having at least two clinical signs linked to MGD: redness or thickening of the lid margin, telangiectasia, reduced or nonexistent secretions, poor quality secretions, and MG capping [25, 26]. The exclusion criteria were patients with contraindications to IPL (recent tanning, skin diseases, active ocular infection, inflammation, and allergies); patients currently using eye drops other than artificial tears; those with evident scarring or severe keratinization of the eyelid margin; and patients with a history of ocular surgery or trauma, punctal plug insertion, heat treatment, MGE, and autoimmune diseases such as Sjögren’s syndrome.

Examinations

The primary endpoint was the change in the objective optical quality, which was analyzed using an optical quality analysis system (OQAS: Visiometrics, Castelldefels, Spain). The secondary endpoints were as follows.

Changes in the best-corrected distance VA (BCVA), OSDI score, lipid layer thickness (LLT), partial blinking rate (PBR), TBUT, CFS score, Schirmer I test value, and MGE. To avoid affecting test results, the tests were conducted in the less invasive to more invasive order. Consequently, BCVA, OSDI, OQAS, LLT, PBR, TBUT, CFS, Schirmer I test, and MGE were tested in this order. All of the above tests were conducted by two ophthalmologists (JK and KK) prior to treatment and three weeks after four IPL treatment sessions were completed.

BCVA was assessed according to a standardized protocol following manifest refraction assessment in both eyes. The Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart was placed 4 m from the patient in a standard light box [27]. BCVA results were converted into the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) for statistical analysis.

To estimate the magnitude of patients’ discomfort, participants were requested to complete the OSDI questionnaire containing 12 questions before and after receiving IPL treatment [28, 29]. OSDI score ≥ 13 is used to define symptomatic DED [30, 31]. Therefore, only patients with an OSDI score ≥ 13 were included in the study.

OQAS measurements were performed by an ophthalmologist (JK) on both eyes of each patient under low light conditions with a pupil diameter of 4.0 mm, prior to instillation of eye drops, as recommended by the manufacturer [32]. OQAS uses a double-pass (DP) technique to objectively measure the image formed on the retina by fusing quantified optical aberrations owing to the diffusion of light in both directions caused by the loss of eye transparency [32, 33]. OQAS measures three parameters: objective scatter index (OSI), modulation transfer function (MTF) cutoff, and point spread function (PSF) expressed as the Strehl ratio (SR) (Fig. 1). OSI objectively quantifies scattered intraocular light [34]. The OSI is defined as the ratio of the light embedded in the peripheral ring to the center crest of the DP image. It depicts the impact of aberration and diffusion on the DP image [35].

The MTF indicates a quantified visual acuity value, and the MTF limit is the spatial rate at which the MTF declines to zero. MTF is a widely agreed upon and validated parameter for quantifying image quality of intraocular lenses (IOLs) [36,37,38]. The higher the value, the clearer is the optical quality. The MTF cut-off is the cut-off point on the x-axis of the MTF curve, which can be directly calculated from the PSF [39]. The PSF describes the quality response of an imaging system and is indicated by the SR, with a value of 1 suggesting a perfect optical system [40]. The higher the value, the clearer the optical quality [41].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Image about the post-treatment objective optical quality parameters evaluated by optical quality analysis system (OQAS®, Visiometrics, Castelldefels, Spain) of a 61-years old female patient. It indicates objective scatter index (OSI) 0.8, MTF cut-off 26.145, and Strehl ratio 0.178

Full size image

LLT and PBR measurements were performed using the LipiView® II ocular surface interferometer (LVII: TearScience Inc., Morrisville, NC, USA [42]. LVII automatically detects and analyzes blink rate and quality [43].

It shows the number of complete and incomplete blinks and numeric blinking frequency. The partial blinking is defined as blinking without contact of the upper and lower eyelids [44].

To measure TBUT, a drop of non-preserved saline solution was added to a fluorescein strip (Haag-Streit Köniz, Switzerland) that was applied to the lower palpebral conjunctiva. Participants were asked to blink several times for few seconds to ensure adequate mixing of the dye on the cornea. Then, the eye was checked using a slit lamp (Haag-Streit BP 900; Haag-Streit, Köniz, Switzerland) with maximum cobalt blue light. The participants were asked to open their eyes wide and look straight, and a single ophthalmologist (KK) measured the time taken for a black spot or line to appear on the cornea. Interval between last blink to the first sign of tear film rupture was recorded as TBUT [45, 46]. While measuring TBUT, the CFS score (0–9) was also evaluated [47].

The Schirmer I test was conducted without anesthesia using sterile Schirmer strips. Strips were placed in the center of the lower fornix for 5 min [48]. During this process, patients were asked to close their eyes. The length of the wet section of the tape was recorded in millimeters, and the test was considered positive if wetting of the paper was ≤ 5 mm [49].

MGE was measured from the five central glands of the upper and lower eyelids with compression forceps (Katena Products, Parsippany, NJ, USA) [28]. Only one experienced ophthalmologist (KK) applied compression.

The induced meibomian secretion (meibum) assessed from 0 to 3 points as follows: 0, clear meibum; 1, cloudy meibum on mild compression; 2, cloudy meibum on moderate compression; and 3, no meibum or toothpaste-like meibum expressed through intense compression [24, 50]. A higher MGE score is indicative of a more obstructive meibum secretion [51, 52].

IPL treatment protocol

A single ophthalmologist (JY) managed Lumenis M22 (M22: Lumenis Ltd., Yokneam, Israel) throughout the study. All patients received four IPL treatment sessions at 3-week intervals. Both eyes were treated on the same day, with the right eye being treated before the left eye. The therapeutic process was based on a previously published technique [53]. Topical 0.5% proparacaine anesthetic eye drops (Paracaine; Hanmi Pharm, Seoul, Republic of Korea) were instilled in each eye. After applying a thin (approximately 1 mm) coat of pre-cooled ultrasound gel to the skin of the eyelids including the nose, the Jaeger lead plate (Katena Products, Denville, NJ, USA) was placed in the conjunctival sac to protect the eye. A series of 20 overlapping pulses were applied to the skin in the preauricular area and across the cheeks and nose on each side. This process was repeated twice. IPL treatment was performed using a 590-nm filter with a 6 mm cylindrical light guide [54]. The fluence was determined based on Fitzpatrick skin types (13–19 J/cm2), as described in earlier studies [54,55,56]. MGX was performed on the upper and lower eyelids using eyelid compression forceps (Katena Products, Parsippany, NJ, USA) immediately following IPL treatment. All patients were administered a preservative-free carboxymethylcellulose sodium 0.5% solution (Refresh Plus®; Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) six times a day.

Statistical analyses

Data were analyzed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 (Chicago, IL, USA), and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Continuous variables are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. Paired analysis was used to compare the pre- and post-treatment data. Normality of the data was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. All paired analyses showed nonparametric distributions and were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

This retrospective study included 90 eyes from 45 patients with MGD. Each eye underwent four IPL treatment and MGX sessions at 3-week intervals. The mean age was 52.3 ± 16.1 years (range, 20–75 years), and 53.3% (24/45) of the patients were female. The objective optical quality and dry eye parameters improved significantly after the IPL treatment. Table 1 summarizes the clinical signs and symptoms before and after IPL treatment combined with MGX. No systemic or skin-related side effects or ocular complications were noted.

Table 1 Changes in clinical parameters for patients with meibomian gland dysfunction between before and three weeks after four sessions of intense pulsed light treatment combined with the meibomian gland expression
Full size table

All optical quality parameters improved significantly after treatment (all p < 0.001). The baseline OSI, MTF cutoff, and SR improved from 3.37 ± 3.05, 21.06 ± 12.30, and 0.12 ± 0.06, to 1.45 ± 0.92, 31. 62 ± 9.58, and 0.18 ± 0.04, respectively. Following treatment, BCVA showed a significant improvement from logMAR 0.04 ± 0.07 to logMAR 0.03 ± 0.05 (p = 0.08). Mean and maximum LLT showed significant improvement after treatment. The baseline mean, maximum, and minimum LLT improved from 75.30 ± 25.03, 89.48 ± 18.70, and 61.90 ± 28.73 to 82.73 ± 20.51, 95.00 ± 12.37, and 67.64 ± 25.92. A significant decline in PBR from 0.51 ± 0.42 to 0.39 ± 0.40 was observed after treatment (p = 0.037). The baseline MGE, CFS, Schirmer I test (mm), TBUT (s), and OSDI score improved from 2.06 ± 0.72, 1.18 ± 0.82, 8.41 ± 1.69, 3.18 ± 1.46, and 31.46 ± 6.29 to 0.92 ± 0.64, 0.61 ± 0.55, 9.64 ± 1.72, 6.60 ± 1.96, and 23.26 ± 5.96, respectively. All these parameters improved significantly after treatment (all < 0.001).

Discussion

MGD is a common ocular surface disease and is one of the most common diseases encountered in ophthalmology [18]. Obstructive MGD is the most common reason for low meibum delivery [49]. The obstruction is accompanied by thickening and opacification of the expressed meibum, which blocks the orifices [57]. Irregularities in the air–film interface on the ocular surface contribute to fluctuating vision owing to the scattering of ocular light measured by the double-pass imaging system, thereby degrading image quality [58, 59]. MGD can cause ocular discomfort, decreased VA, and decreased quality of vision [60]. IPL can heal the MG, enabling it to produce good quality meibum [61]. It is expected that IPL treatment will play a positive role in maintaining the tear film and improving VA and clinical outcomes in patients with MGD. The Tear Film & Ocular Surface Society Dry Eye Workshop II Management and Treatment Report proposed IPL as second-stage treatment following education, eyelid hygiene, and various types of eye lubricants [62]. IPL treatment has proven to be highly promising for DED with MGD [63]. This is probably because the heat distribution alleviates abnormal secretions of glands, kills harmful Demodex mites, and reduces inflammatory markers on the ocular surface [64]. Regarding the mechanism of action of IPL in MGD, the treatment heats the MGs by increasing the temperature of the thin periocular skin, favoring the melting of the meibum [65]. Tear lipids secreted by decent MG helps maintain the solidity of the tear film [66].

Visual complaints due to DED is often clinically overlooked due to its sometimes diurnal variation [67], fluctuating visual morbidity nature as traditionally measured [68]. The irregularities in the tear film increase ocular scattering, exacerbating contrast sensitivity and optical quality [57, 69]. Pathological thinning of the tear film has been documented to significantly affect the light coming into the pupils and influence the subjective quality of vision (QOV) [70]. An unstable tear film may weaken visual function, resulting in blurred vision and glare [71].

The irregularity of the tear film may cause an uneven corneal surface and, consequently, subject the retina to larger optical aberrations [11]. Tear film instability also reduces both contrast sensitivity and VA [4, 72]. The OSI is not only related to the intraocular scattering caused by cataract, but also to the stability of the tear film [73]. Several studies have found that the OSI is higher in eyes with DED than in normal eyes [57, 69, 74]. The IPL treatment appears to have improved the stability and evenness of the tear film, leading to an improvement in BCVA and objective optical quality in our study. According to another study, similar to ours, IPL treatment can significantly improve tear stability, subjective OSDI, and subjective QOV scores [20]. Specifically, the results of this study indicate that visual disturbances related to glare, halos and blurred vision have markedly improved.[20].

The strength of our study is that it is the first study to show the improvement in objective optical quality after combined IPL treatment and MGX for MGD. In this study, BCVA and objective optical quality improved significantly from baseline after four sessions of IPL treatment combined with MGX.

There are limitations to the interpretation of our findings. First, this study was limited by its uncontrolled design and small number of participants. Second, because this study used a before- and after-treatment observational design, no controls were enrolled. This may have introduced bias into the efficacy findings. It would make the study more credible if the test results were included after each IPL treatment rather than only the baseline and final treatment. As the IPL treatment sessions are relatively long, 3 weeks apart, changes in the indicators after each IPL treatment would have been very informative. Third, in addition to IPL treatment, patients in this study used artificial tears. It could not be inferred from this study how the ocular surface parameters and optical quality would change with artificial tears alone. Fourth, There was no assessment of eyelid margins or MG dropout, which would provide additional information on MG changes. Fifth, the last follow-up was completed three weeks after the completion of all treatment sessions. Thus, the observation period was insufficient to determine the long-term effects of IPL treatment combined with MGX. Because the subjective results have been reported in many other articles, our main purpose was to focus on changing the objective optical quality. To validate the current findings, a prospective case–control study comparing patients with and without IPL treatment (artificial tears only) with a larger number of participants and longer follow-up is necessary.

In summary, IPL treatment combined with MGX improved the objective optical quality and DED parameters in patients with MGD. Based on our findings, we hope that the indications and extent of IPL use can be expanded.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Lemp MA, Crews LA, Bron AJ, Foulks GN, Sullivan BD. Distribution of aqueous-deficient and evaporative dry eye in a clinic-based patient cohort: a retrospective study. Cornea. 2012;31(5):472–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stapleton F, Alves M, Bunya VY, Jalbert I, Lekhanont K, Malet F, Na KS, Schaumberg D, Uchino M, Vehof J, et al. TFOS DEWS II Epidemiology Report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):334–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Donthineni PR, Kammari P, Shanbhag SS, Singh V, Das AV, Basu S. Incidence, demographics, types and risk factors of dry eye disease in India: electronic medical records driven big data analytics report I. Ocul Surf. 2019;17(2):250–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tutt R, Bradley A, Begley C, Thibos LN. Optical and visual impact of tear break-up in human eyes. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41(13):4117–23.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Koh S, Tung CI, Inoue Y, Jhanji V. Effects of tear film dynamics on quality of vision. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102(12):1615–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yokoi N, Uchino M, Uchino Y, Dogru M, Kawashima M, Komuro A, Sonomura Y, Kato H, Tsubota K, Kinoshita S. Importance of tear film instability in dry eye disease in office workers using visual display terminals: the Osaka study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;159(4):748–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Karaca EE, Evren Kemer Ö, Özek D. Intense regulated pulse light for the meibomian gland dysfunction. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2020;30(2):289–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Montés-Micó R. Role of the tear film in the optical quality of the human eye. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33(9):1631–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Montés-Micó R, Cáliz A, Alió JL. Changes in ocular aberrations after instillation of artificial tears in dry-eye patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30(8):1649–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Huang FC, Tseng SH, Shih MH, Chen FK. Effect of artificial tears on corneal surface regularity, contrast sensitivity, and glare disability in dry eyes. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(10):1934–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Montés-Micó R, Cáliz A, Alió JL. Wavefront analysis of higher order aberrations in dry eye patients. J refractive Surg (Thorofare NJ: 1995). 2004;20(3):243–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chung HS, Han YE, Lee H, Kim JY, Tchah H. Intense pulsed light treatment of the upper and lower eyelids in patients with moderate-to-severe meibomian gland dysfunction. Int Ophthalmol 2022.

  13. Qin G, Chen J, Li L, Xia Y, Zhang Q, Wu Y, Yang L, Moutari S, Moore JE, Xu L, et al. Managing severe evaporative Dry Eye with intense pulsed light therapy. Ophthalmology and therapy; 2023.

  14. Lee SH, Kim M, Lee WJ, Chun YS, Kim KW. Different number of Sessions of intense pulsed light and meibomian gland expression combination therapy for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction. Korean J ophthalmology: KJO. 2022;36(6):527–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Chung HS, Han YE, Lee H, Kim JY, Tchah H. Intense pulsed light treatment of the upper and lower eyelids in patients with moderate-to-severe meibomian gland dysfunction. Int Ophthalmol. 2023;43(1):73–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tang Y, Liu R, Tu P, Song W, Qiao J, Yan X, Rong B. A retrospective study of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors of intense Pulsed Light Therapy Combined with Meibomian Gland expression in patients with Meibomian Gland Dysfunction. Eye Contact Lens. 2021;47(1):38–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Toyos R, Toyos M, Willcox J, Mulliniks H, Hoover J. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of intense pulsed light treatment with Meibomian Gland expression of the Upper Eyelids for Dry Eye Disease. Photobiomodulation Photomed laser Surg. 2019;37(9):527–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Shin KY, Lim DH, Moon CH, Kim BJ, Chung TY. Intense pulsed light plus meibomian gland expression versus intense pulsed light alone for meibomian gland dysfunction: a randomized crossover study. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(3):e0246245.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Tashbayev B, Yazdani M, Arita R, Fineide F, Utheim TP. Intense pulsed light treatment in meibomian gland dysfunction: a concise review. Ocul Surf. 2020;18(4):583–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fan Q, Pazo EE, You Y, Zhang C, Zhang C, Xu L, He W. Subjective quality of Vision in Evaporative Dry Eye Patients after intense pulsed light. Photobiomodulation Photomed laser Surg. 2020;38(7):444–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Yang L, Pazo EE, Qin G, Zhang Q, Wu Y, Song Y, Zhang H, Lin T, Xu L, Moore JE, et al. Effect of intense pulsed light on anterior corneal aberrations and quality of vision in patients with evaporative Dry Eye. Photobiomodulation Photomed laser Surg. 2021;39(3):185–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ozcura F, Aydin S, Helvaci MR. Ocular surface disease index for the diagnosis of dry eye syndrome. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2007;15(5):389–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Echieh CI, Etim BA, Echieh CP, Oyeniyi T, Ajewole J. A comparative assessment of dry eye disease among outdoor street sweepers and indoor office cleaners. BMC Ophthalmol. 2021;21(1):265.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Park Y, Kim H, Kim S, Cho KJ. Effect of low-level light therapy in patients with dry eye: a prospective, randomized, observer-masked trial. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):3575.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Jiang X, Lv H, Song H, Zhang M, Liu Y, Hu X, Li X, Wang W. Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of Intense Pulsed Light in the Treatment of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction. Journal of ophthalmology 2016, 2016:1910694.

  26. Chen C, Chen D, Chou YY, Long Q. Factors influencing the clinical outcomes of intense pulsed light for meibomian gland dysfunction. Med (Baltim). 2021;100(49):e28166.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Yu HJ, Kaiser PK, Zamora D, Bocanegra M, Cone C, Brown DM, Sadda SR, Wykoff CC. Visual acuity variability: comparing discrepancies between Snellen and ETDRS measurements among subjects entering prospective trials. Ophthalmol Retina. 2021;5(3):224–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ruan F, Zang Y, Sella R, Lu H, Li S, Yang K, Jin T, Afshari NA, Pan Z, Jie Y. Intense pulsed light therapy with optimal Pulse Technology as an Adjunct Therapy for moderate to severe Blepharitis-Associated Keratoconjunctivitis. J Ophthalmol. 2019;2019:3143469.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Schiffman RM, Christianson MD, Jacobsen G, Hirsch JD, Reis BL. Reliability and validity of the ocular surface Disease Index. Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago Ill: 1960). 2000;118(5):615–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Asiedu K, Kyei S, Boampong F, Ocansey S. Symptomatic Dry Eye and its Associated factors: a study of University undergraduate students in Ghana. Eye Contact Lens. 2017;43(4):262–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lu F, Tao A, Hu Y, Tao W, Lu P. Evaluation of reliability and validity of three common Dry Eye Questionnaires in Chinese. J Ophthalmol. 2018;2018:2401213.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Garcin T, Grivet D, Thuret G, Gain P. Using Optical Quality Analysis System for predicting surgical parameters in age-related cataract patients. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(10):e0240350.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Chen T, Yu F, Lin H, Zhao Y, Chang P, Lin L, Chen Q, Zheng Q, Zhao YE, Lu F, et al. Objective and subjective visual quality after implantation of all optic zone diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses: a prospective, case-control observational study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(11):1530–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shetty R, Deshpande K, Jayadev C, Wadia K, Mehta P, Shroff R, Rao HL. The impact of dysfunctional tear films and optical aberrations on chronic migraine. Eye Vis (Lond). 2017;4:4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wei Z, Su Y, Su G, Baudouin C, Labbé A, Liang Q. Effect of artificial tears on dynamic optical quality in patients with dry eye disease. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022;22(1):64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Alarcon A, Canovas C, Rosen R, Weeber H, Tsai L, Hileman K, Piers P. Preclinical metrics to predict through-focus visual acuity for pseudophakic patients. Biomedical Opt express. 2016;7(5):1877–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Pieh S, Fiala W, Malz A, Stork W. In vitro strehl ratios with spherical, aberration-free, average, and customized spherical aberration-correcting intraocular lenses. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(3):1264–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Son HS, Tandogan T, Liebing S, Merz P, Choi CY, Khoramnia R, Auffarth GU. In vitro optical quality measurements of three intraocular lens models having identical platform. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17(1):108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Tan QQ, Lin J, Tian J, Liao X, Lan CJ. Objective optical quality in eyes with customized selection of aspheric intraocular lens implantation. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019;19(1):152.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Kang KH, Song MY, Kim KY, Hwang KY, Kwon YA, Koh K. Visual performance and Optical Quality after Implantation of a New Generation Monofocal intraocular Lens. Korean J ophthalmology: KJO. 2021;35(2):112–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Saad A, Saab M, Gatinel D. Repeatability of measurements with a double-pass system. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(1):28–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee J, Hwang G, Ha M, Kim HS, Han K, Na KS. Evaluation of the meibomian glands using the tear interferometer wearing orthokeratology lenses. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022;22(1):133.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Lee JM, Jeon YJ, Kim KY, Hwang KY, Kwon YA, Koh K. Ocular surface analysis: a comparison between the LipiView(®) II and IDRA(®). Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(5):2300–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Jeon YJ, Song MY, Kim KY, Hwang KY, Kwon YA, Koh K. Relationship between the partial blink rate and ocular surface parameters. Int Ophthalmol. 2021;41(7):2601–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Noh SR, Chung JL, Lee JM, Seo KY, Koh K. Meibomian gland atrophy with duration of Sjogren’s syndrome in adult females. Int Ophthalmol. 2022;42(1):191–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Park JW, Han J, Choi WK, Kim J, Choi CY. Simple surgical punctal occlusion with high frequency radiowave electrosurgery. BMC Ophthalmol. 2023;23(1):49.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Tauber J, Berdy GJ, Wirta DL, Krösser S, Vittitow JL. NOV03 for Dry Eye Disease Associated with Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: results of the Randomized phase 3 GOBI Study. Ophthalmology; 2022.

  48. Ekici E, Çağlar İ, Akgümüş E. The Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Correlation of the Schirmer Test: A Comparison of Open versus Closed Eye. Korean J ophthalmology: KJO 2022.

  49. Yurttaser Ocak S, Karakus S, Ocak OB, Cakir A, Bolukbasi S, Erden B, Bas E, Elcioglu M. Intense pulse light therapy treatment for refractory dry eye disease due to meibomian gland dysfunction. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40(5):1135–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kim HM, Eom Y, Song JS. The relationship between morphology and function of the Meibomian Glands. Eye Contact Lens. 2018;44(1):1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee JS, Jun I, Kim EK, Seo KY, Kim TI. Clinical accuracy of an advanced corneal topographer with Tear-Film analysis in functional and structural evaluation of Dry Eye Disease. Semin Ophthalmol. 2020;35(2):134–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Eom Y, Na KS, Cho KJ, Hwang HS, Kim SW, Chung TY, Jun RM, Song JS, Kim HS. Distribution and characteristics of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction Subtypes: a Multicenter Study in South Korea. Korean J ophthalmology: KJO. 2019;33(3):205–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Li D, Lin SB, Zhang MZ, Cheng B. Preliminary Assessment of intense pulsed light treatment on the Upper Eyelids for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction. Photobiomodulation Photomed laser Surg. 2020;38(4):249–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kim M, Min J. Effect of Intense Pulsed-Light Treatment Using a Novel Dual-Band Filter in Patients with Meibomian Gland Dysfunction. Journal of clinical medicine 2022, 11(13).

  55. Wu Y, Li J, Hu M, Zhao Y, Lin X, Chen Y, Li L, Zhao YE. Comparison of two intense pulsed light patterns for treating patients with meibomian gland dysfunction. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40(7):1695–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Min JS, Yoon SH, Kim KY, Jun I, Kim EK, Kim TI, Seo KY. Treatment Effect and Pain during treatment with intense pulsed-light therapy according to the light guide in patients with Meibomian Gland Dysfunction. Cornea. 2022;41(2):177–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Yu AY, Lu T, Pan AP, Lin DR, Xu CC, Huang JH, Bao FJ. Assessment of tear Film Optical Quality Dynamics. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(8):3821–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Herbaut A, Liang H, Rabut G, Trinh L, Kessal K, Baudouin C, Labbé A. Impact of Dry Eye Disease on Vision Quality: an Optical Quality Analysis System Study. Translational Vis Sci Technol. 2018;7(4):5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Koh S, Maeda N, Ikeda C, Asonuma S, Mitamura H, Oie Y, Soma T, Tsujikawa M, Kawasaki S, Nishida K. Ocular forward light scattering and corneal backward light scattering in patients with dry eye. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(10):6601–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. McGinnigle S, Naroo SA, Eperjesi F. Evaluation of dry eye. Surv Ophthalmol. 2012;57(4):293–316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Vigo L, Pellegrini M, Carones F, Scorcia V, Giannaccare G. Outcomes of serial sessions of activa mask combined with intense pulsed light therapy in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction. BMC Ophthalmol. 2022;22(1):313.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Jones L, Downie LE, Korb D, Benitez-Del-Castillo JM, Dana R, Deng SX, Dong PN, Geerling G, Hida RY, Liu Y, et al. TFOS DEWS II Management and Therapy Report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):575–628.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Arita R, Fukuoka S, Morishige N. Therapeutic efficacy of intense pulsed light in patients with refractory meibomian gland dysfunction. Ocul Surf. 2019;17(1):104–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Chung HS, Rhim JW, Park JH. Combination treatment with intense pulsed light, thermal pulsation (LipiFlow), and meibomian gland expression for refractory meibomian gland dysfunction. Int Ophthalmol 2022.

  65. Toyos R, McGill W, Briscoe D. Intense pulsed light treatment for dry eye disease due to meibomian gland dysfunction; a 3-year retrospective study. Photomed Laser Surg. 2015;33(1):41–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Lee JH, Kim CH, Choe CM, Choi TH. Correlation analysis between ocular surface parameters with subjective Symptom Severity in Dry Eye Disease. Korean J ophthalmology: KJO. 2020;34(3):203–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Walker PM, Lane KJ, Ousler GW 3rd, Abelson MB. Diurnal variation of visual function and the signs and symptoms of dry eye. Cornea. 2010;29(6):607–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bron AJ, de Paiva CS, Chauhan SK, Bonini S, Gabison EE, Jain S, Knop E, Markoulli M, Ogawa Y, Perez V et al. Corrigendum to “TFOS DEWS II pathophysiology report” [Ocul. Surf. 15 (3) (2017) 438–510]. The ocular surface 2019, 17(4):842.

  69. Hu AL, Qiao LY, Zhang Y, Cai XG, Li L, Wan XH. Reproducibility of optical quality parameters measured at objective and subjective best focuses in a double-pass system. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015;8(5):1043–50.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Koh S, Maeda N, Kuroda T, Hori Y, Watanabe H, Fujikado T, Tano Y, Hirohara Y, Mihashi T. Effect of tear film break-up on higher-order aberrations measured with wavefront sensor. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;134(1):115–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Liu H, Thibos L, Begley CG, Bradley A. Measurement of the time course of optical quality and visual deterioration during tear break-up. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(6):3318–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Goto T, Zheng X, Klyce SD, Kataoka H, Uno T, Yamaguchi M, Karon M, Hirano S, Okamoto S, Ohashi Y. Evaluation of the tear film stability after laser in situ keratomileusis using the tear film stability analysis system. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137(1):116–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Chu MF, Hui N, Wang CY, Yu L, Ma B, Li Y, Pei C. Early outcomes of vision and objective visual quality analysis after cataract surgery with trifocal intraocular lens implantation. Int J Ophthalmol. 2019;12(10):1575–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Benito A, Pérez GM, Mirabet S, Vilaseca M, Pujol J, Marín JM, Artal P. Objective optical assessment of tear-film quality dynamics in normal and mildly symptomatic dry eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(8):1481–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Kim’s Eye Hospital Research Center for the English revision.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Woong-Joo Whang

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Kim’s Eye Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Jeongseop Yun & Kyungmin Koh

Authors
  1. Woong-Joo Whang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeongseop Yun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kyungmin Koh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Authors’ contributions WW, JY acquired and analyzed the data, drafted the initial manuscript, and revised the manuscript. KK conceptualized and designed the study, and collected data. WW and KK conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated, and supervised data collection, analyzed the data, critically reviewed the manuscript, and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyungmin Koh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Kim’s Eye Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea (IRB number: 2021-09-006), and the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki were followed. Considering the retrospective nature of the study and the use of deidentified patient data, the written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board of Kim’s Eye Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent for publication was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s) for the publication of identifying information.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whang, WJ., Yun, J. & Koh, K. Intense pulsed-light treatment improves objective optical quality in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction. BMC Ophthalmol 23, 191 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-02939-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-02939-9

Keywords

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us