Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2025
Intense Pulsed Light for the Treatment of Dry Eye Owing to Meibomian Gland Dysfunction
Published on: April 1, 2019
Low-level light therapy and intense pulse light therapy in meibomian gland dysfunction. A systematic review and
Kai En Chan1, Beth Shin Rei Lau2, Blanche Xiao Hong Lim3
1Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Background:
Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a leading cause of dry eye disease, affecting over a third of the global population. This disease is associated with ocular discomfort, reduced visual quality, and quality of life. Novel treatments like Intense Pulse Light (IPL) therapy and Low-Level Light Therapy (LLLT) have been reported to be useful in refractory MGD treatment. However, no systematic review has explored the utility of combining these two therapies.
Methods:
Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched for articles on LLLT + IPL therapy in MGD. A meta-analysis of single means was conducted to assess clinical endpoints.
Results:
Analysis of 12 studies showed that LLLT + IPL therapy in MGD patients led to a significant decrease in Ocular Surface Disease Index score (MD: -22.8, 95 %CI: -29.1 to -16.5, I2 = 97.5 %, p < 0.001), and a significant increase in both Tear Break-up Time (MD: 2.2 s, 95 %CI: 0.9 s to 3.4 s, I2 = 98.6 %, p < 0.001) and Schirmer test (MD: 1.5 mm, 95 %CI: 0.6 mm to 2.5 mm, I2 = 0.0 %, p = 0.001) at ≤ 3 months post treatment. These improvements were sustained in a sensitivity analysis at endpoints ≥ 6 months post treatment. While the percentage of loss of meibomian gland area (n = 4, MD: -3.8 %, 95 %CI: -7.2 % to -0.4 %, I2 = 40.0 %, p = 0.031) was reported to be significantly reduced, this was not found to be sustained at endpoints ≥ 6 months post treatment (n = 2, MD: 5.9 %, 95 %CI: 1.8 % to 10.0 %, I2 = 0.0 %, p = 0.005) in two studies.
Conclusions:
This meta-analysis provides quantitative evidence supporting the clinical efficacy of LLLT + IPL therapy in MGD. Future research should evaluate its long-term safety and efficacy and compare it with alternative treatments.
