Purpose:
To evaluate the effect of a single treatment with the LipiFlow(®) Thermal Pulsation System on signs of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) and dry eye symptoms over a 9-month period.
Methods:
Patients (n = 42 eyes, 21 subjects) diagnosed with MGD and dry eye symptoms were recruited for a non-significant risk, prospective, open-label, 1-month clinical trial. Patients received a single 12-minute treatment using the LipiFlow(®) Thermal Pulsation System on each eye. The LipiFlow(®) device applies heat to the conjunctival surfaces of the upper and lower inner eyelids while simultaneously applying pulsatile pressure to the outer eyelid surfaces to express the meibomian glands. Patient symptoms were evaluated using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Standard Patient Evaluation for Eye Dryness (SPEED) dry eye questionnaires; tear break-up time was measured with the dry eye test (DET™); and meibomian gland function was evaluated using a standardized diagnostic expression technique. Data are presented for patient's pre-treatment (baseline) and at 1-month and 9-month post-treatment.
Results:
Meibomian gland secretion scores improved significantly from baseline (4.4 ± 4.0) to 1-month post-treatment (11.3 ± 6.2; p < 0.0001) and this improvement was maintained with no significant regression at 9 months (11.7 ± 5.9). Similarly, baseline tear break-up time (4.8 ± 3.2) was significantly increased at 1 month (9.6 ± 7.6; p < 0.001) and this increase was maintained with no significant regression at 9 months (7.1 ± 5.6). Symptom scores on both OSDI and SPEED questionnaires improved significantly at 1 month (p < 0.0001) and this improvement was maintained at 9 months.
Conclusion:
With such prolonged improvement in signs and symptoms of dry eye disease, the LipiFlow(®) Thermal Pulsation System offers a technological advancement for the treatment of dry eye disease secondary to meibomian gland dysfunction. A single 12-minute LipiFlow(®) treatment results in up to 9 months of sustained improvement of meibomian gland function, tear break-up time and dry eye symptoms that are unparalleled with current dry eye treatments.
Curr Eye Res. 2012 Feb 10. [Epub ahead of print]
Greiner JV.
Source
Schepens Eye Research Institute and the Department of Ophthalmology , Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA , USA.
3 comments:
I travelled to Toronto, Canada at a cost of $3000 (including cost of Lipiflow procedure) but this treatment was totally ineffective for me. I was told that they would perform a test to see if I "qualified" for treatment and if they thought it wouldn't work, they would not go forward with the procedure. They did, so I thought the treatment would work. There has been no improvement since I had the treatment in August 2011 and I can't tell you how disappointed I am. When I contacted Herzig Eye Institute, they simply stated "It doesn't work for everyone". Extremely disappointing to say the least.
I also had the Lipiflow treatment in June 2011 at the Herzig Eye Institute in Toronto and was extremely disappointed with the results. The improvement was minimal and certainly not worth the cost. I was also "screened" prior to having the procedure which makes me wonder how valid the screening procedure really is. I believe that patients should be offered another session at no cost if the first one yields poor results. I wouldn't expect any further treatments after a second "failure" however I would at least feel they "stood behind the product and their services. After that it would be easier to accept that the Lipiflow procedure just didn't work for me.
I did the lipiflow in Toronto. It took one month to start to see the results. Then for one month i did not have any dry eye symptoms.... After one month, it all came back. It's not worth the price... This treatment is in my opinion too expensive. I will not do it again.
Post a Comment