Background and

objectives:

The study aimed to establish the efficiency of combining the Posiforlid heated eye mask with intense pulsed light therapy (IPL), as a treatment strategy for evaporative dry eye disease. Materials and

methods:

This study included 110 patients, respectively 220 eyes, diagnosed with evaporative dry eye disease, patients between 18 and 86 years old, divided into two study groups. The first one, the control group, consisted of 73 patients treated with IPL therapy, and the second of 37 patients, who underwent IPL therapy associated with Posiforlid heated eye mask. Subjective evolution was assessed using an eye fitness test (EFT) regarding symptomatology. Objective assessment of the ocular surface was performed by tear film stability evaluation (TFSE), non-invasive first break-up time (NIFBUT), non-invasive average breakup time (NIABUT), ocular surface inflammatory evaluation (OSIE), measuring of the central tear meniscus height (CTMH) and thinnest tear meniscus height (TTMH). The assessment was performed at the beginning of the IPL treatment, during the IPL sessions, at the end of the IPL treatment, and afterward, at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results:

Tear film stability has increased in both study cases, but no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups studied. For the control group, tear film stability evaluation (TFSE) started from 310.56 ± 389.54 at baseline (time 1 presentation) to 114.40 ± 122.90 after 12 months, and for the heated mask group, from 391.11 ± 456.45 (time 1 presentation) to 97.38 ± 105.98 after 12 months. NIABUT increased from 10.72 ± 4.90 seconds to 14.79 ± 3.72 seconds in the control group, and from 11.11 ± 5.08 seconds to 15.84 ± 2.26 seconds in the second group. OSIE decreased, as expected, from 7.18 ± 7.93 percent in the control group to 2.24 ± 2.38 percent after 12 months and from 7.42 ± 7.77 percent to 2.47 ± 2.50 percent in the Posiforlid group. Although significantly lower, there was no significant difference between the two studied groups. No statistically significant changes were registered in the studied quantitative parameters. Using the EFT test, great improvements were registered regarding symptomatology, with a score increasing from 29.99 ± 8.60 to 39.10 ± 5.08 in the control group and from 27.35 ± 9.24 to 38.35 ± 4.62 in the other group. Again, the same statistical result was registered on this variable.

Conclusions:

The improvement of tear film stability, ocular surface inflammatory condition, and subjective symptoms during IPL therapy sessions and the first year of observation after the completion of the treatment was not necessarily increased by the additional use of a heated eye mask. Abbreviations IPL = intense pulsed light therapy, EFT = eye fitness test, NIFBUT = non-invasive first break-up time, NIABUT = non-invasive average break-up time, OSIE = ocular surface inflammatory evaluation, TFSE = tear film stability evaluation, CTMH = central tear meniscus height, TTMH = thinnest tear meniscus height, DED = dry eye disease, MGD = meibomian gland dysfunction, SD = standard deviation.