Comparison Between Heated Eye Mask and Intense Pulsed Light Treatment for Contact Lens-Related Dry Eye.

Background

Contact lens-related dry eye (CLDE) is common in contact lens (CL) wearers and can lead to ocular pain, decreased visual quality, and reduced quality of life.

Objective

The purpose of this prospective, randomized, examiner masked study was to compare the effectiveness of intense pulsed light (IPL) and heated eye mask (HEM) for relieving CLDE.

Methods

The final analysis included 60 patients (30 in the IPL group and 30 in the HEM group) who were using CL and had been suffering contact lens discomfort for more than a year. The IPL treatment group had two IPL treatments spaced 3 weeks apart, whereas the HEM group received HEM daily for 6 weeks (42 days). Non-invasive tear break-up time (NITBUT), tear-film lipid layer (TFLL), conjunctival fluorescein staining, meibum gland quality and expression, conjunctival redness score, ocular surface disease index (OSDI), best-corrected visual acuity, endothelial cell count, and intraocular pressure were assessed at baseline: first visit (V1), second visit (V2), and third visit (V3).

Results

The mean age of the IPL group was 28.6 ± 4.3 years (16 females, 53%) and that of the HEM group was 28.6 ± 4.2 years (16 females, 53%). Mean NITBUT for the IPL group at V2 was 5.53 ± 0.77 sec (p < 0.001) and at V3 was 7.72 ± 0.88 sec (p < 0.001); the IPL group demonstrated a clinically and statistically significant improvement in mean NITBUT. In addition, the HEM group showed a clinically and statistically significant improvement in mean NITBUT at V3 (5.86 ± 0.76 sec, p < 0.001). At V3, the C-OSDI, TFLL score, and meibum gland quality and expressibility all increased considerably (p < 0.05) in both groups.

Conclusions

Our results imply that IPL or HEM treatment of CLDE can be safely used to relieve symptoms of CLDE. In addition, IPL treatment is more effective in improving the general stability of the tear-film and decreasing the need for artificial tears in CLDE.