The purpose of the study was to evaluate the\nefficacy and safety of wet chamber warming goggles\n(Blephasteam) in patients with meibomian gland\ndysfunction (MGD) unresponsive to warm compress\ntreatment. We consecutively enrolled 50 adult patients\nwith low-delivery, non-cicatricial, MGD, and we\ninstructed them to apply warm compresses twice a day\nfor 10 min for 3 weeks and to use Blephasteam\n(Laboratoires Thea, Clermont-Ferrand, France) twice a\nday for 10 min for the following 3 weeks. We considered\nââ?¬Ë?ââ?¬Ë?not-respondersââ?¬â?¢Ã¢â?¬â?¢ to warm compress treatment the\npatients who showed no clinically significant Ocular\nSurface Disease Index (OSDI) improvement after the\nfirst 3 weeks. Clinical and in vivo confocal outcome\nmeasures were assessed in the worst eye (lower BUT) at\nbaseline, after 3 weeks, and after 6 weeks. Eighteen/50\npatients were not-responders to warm compress treatment.\nThese patients, after 3 weeks of treatment with\nBlephasteam, showed significant improvement of\nOSDI score (36.4 Ã?± 15.8 vs 20.2 Ã?± 12.4; P\\0.05,\npaired samples t test), increased BUT (3.4 Ã?± 1.6 vs\n7.6 Ã?± 2.7;P\\0.05), and decreased acinar diameter and\narea (98.4 Ã?± 18.6 vs 64.5 Ã?± 14.4 and 8,037 Ã?± 1,411 vs\n5,532 Ã?± 1,172, respectively; P\\0.05). Neither warm\ncompresses nor Blephasteam determined adverse\nresponses. In conclusion, eyelid warming is the mainstay\nof the clinical treatment ofMGDand its poor results may\nbe often due to lack of compliance and standardization.\nBlephasteam wet chamber warming goggles are a\npromising alternative to classical warm compress treatment,\npotentially able to improve the effectiveness of the\nââ?¬Ë?ââ?¬Ë?warming approach.ââ?¬â?¢Ã¢â?¬â?¢
Loading....