Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 21, 2026
Intense Pulsed Light for the Treatment of Dry Eye Owing to Meibomian Gland Dysfunction
Published on: April 1, 2019
A comparison of an eyelid-warming device to traditional compress therapy
Heiko Pult1, Britta H Riede-Pult, Christine Purslow
1Dr. Heiko Pult-Optometry & Vision Research, Weinheim, Germany. ovr@heiko-pult.de
Purpose:
To assess the warming and humidifying effect and ocular safety of the Blephasteam® eyelid-warming device vs. warm and moist compresses in healthy volunteers.
Methods:
Twenty subjects (8 females, 12 males; mean age 39.2 years) were included in the study. Temperature and relative humidity were measured over a period of 10 min at the lower eyelid margin of one randomly selected eye during application of the Blephasteam device and, 1 h later, during application of warm compresses (in a randomized order). Ocular signs and visual acuity were assessed before and after each application.
Results:
The mean duration of warming (temperature ≥38°C) was significantly longer with Blephasteam than with compresses (7.5 vs. 1.0 min; p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between treatments in the duration of 100% relative humidity. Compared with pretreatment values, visual acuity significantly improved after Blephasteam treatment (p < 0.05) but significantly decreased after treatment with compresses (p < 0.05). Limbal redness, eyelid redness, and corneal staining scores all improved significantly after Blephasteam treatment (p < 0.05 for all). Ocular signs did not change after compress treatment except conjunctival redness, which was significantly increased (p = 0.01 vs. pretreatment).
Conclusions:
The Blephasteam eyelid-warming device appeared to provide more effective warming than warm and moist compresses in a group of healthy volunteers. Visual acuity, limbal redness, and eyelid redness were improved after Blephasteam use but not after treatment with compresses.
