Purchase this article with an account.
Reiko Arita, Naoyuki Morishige, Rika Shirakawa, Yoichi Sato, Shiro Amano, ; Comparison of effect of five warming devices onto tear functions, meibomian glands and ocular surface. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):29.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare the efficacy of five commercially available eyelid-warming devices on improving tear film function and meibomian glands conditions.
Fourteen eyes of 14 healthy volunteers (7 men, 7 women; mean ± SD of age, 33.9±11.4 years) were enrolled in a short-term study (5 minutes application) and ten eyes of 10 healthy volunteers (5 men, 5 women; mean ± SD of age, 32.3±11.7 years) were enrolled in a long-term study (2 weeks application). Five eyelid-warming devices were categorized into two groups: warm types (Azukino-Chikara, EyeHot R) and warm-moist types (warm towel, hot eye-mask, Memoto Esthe). Warm compress using one of the devices for 5 minutes on different days was applied onto the subjects (short-time study). Warming using one of the devices (warm or warm-moist) for 5 minutes twice a day for 2 weeks was applied in another day (long-term study). VAS scores for ocular symptoms, surface temperature measurement (eyelids, cornea, palpebral conjunctiva) using thermography, tear film breakup time (BUT), meibum grading, quantification analysis of the meibomian gland area, and the Schirmer value were evaluated before and after the each application.
Every warming device significantly improved the VAS score, increased surface temperature, BUT, and the grading of meibum (P <0.01) after short-period warm compress. Warm type of devices provided warm effect better than warm-moist type. Long-term study reveled that warm-moist type devices did not affect tear film condition nor meibomian gland area and function. On the other hand, warm type significantly improved BUT (p<0.001) and the grading of meibum (p=0.022) and meibomian gland area (p=0.022). Furthermore, warm type devices significantly increased the temperature of palpebral conjunctiva (p<0.001).
Commercially available warming devices were effective for short-period efficacy. Warm type devices provided the effect better than warm-moist type. Warm type devices with long time usage were more effective than warm-moist type in continuously improving the conditions of tear film, meibomian gland and ocular surface.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only