July 2018
Volume 59, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2018
A comparison of four warm compress devices
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Graham Stetson
    New England College of Optometry, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
    Korb & Associates, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • Christen Kenrick
    Korb & Associates, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
    MicroSurgical Eye Consultants, Peabody, Massachusetts, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Graham Stetson, None; Christen Kenrick, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2018, Vol.59, 953. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Graham Stetson, Christen Kenrick; A comparison of four warm compress devices. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):953.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Eyelid warming treatments have become popular therapies for meibomian gland dysfunction. This study compared the ability of 4 commercially available lid heating devices to increase eyelid temperature and tear film lipid layer thickness (LLT), and determined whether any device altered corneal topography.

Methods : An IRB approved, non-randomized, prospective study enrolled nine adult female subjects without ocular disease. A single treatment to one eye with one of the following warm compress devices was completed at each visit: Bruder Moist Heat Eye Compress, Thea Blephasteam, MiBo ThermoFlo, and LipiFlow. For each treatment we measured corneal topography, lipid layer thickness, and temperatures of the inner and outer, upper and lower eyelids at baseline and again after treatment. Treatments were separated by an average of 31 days.

Results : The MiBo ThermoFlo raised the outer upper and lower eyelid temperatures 0.52 °C and 0.56 °C, and the inner upper and lower eyelid temperatures 1.13 °C and 1.19 °C. The Bruder device raised the outer upper and lower eyelid temperatures 1.88 °C and 1.49 °C, and the inner upper and lower eyelid temperatures 1.69 °C and 1.56 °C. The Blephasteam raised the outer upper and lower eyelid temperatures 1.07 °C and 0.63 °C, and the inner upper and lower eyelid temperatures 1.78 °C and 1.44 °C. The LipiFlow raised the outer upper and lower eyelid temperatures 1.71 °C and 0.91 °C, and the inner upper and lower eyelid temperatures 2.11 °C and 2.32 °C.
The average difference in LLT after treatment for the MiBo ThermoFlo was +0.89nm. For the LipiFlow, the difference was +15.00nm. For the Blephasteam, the difference was +19.00nm. The Bruder device showed an average difference in LLT of +20.67nm.
None of the four devices caused significant alteration of corneal curvature, magnitude of astigmatism, astigmatism axis, or eccentricity.

Conclusions : All devices tested raised the temperature of the inner eyelids but not by equal amounts. LipiFlow heated the inner eyelids more than the other devices. The post treatment increase in LLT was similar with the Bruder device, Blephasteam and LipiFlow, while the MiBo ThermoFlo had the smallest LLT increase. LipiFlow expresses and removes meibum, and the ThermoFlo requires application of ultrasound gel to the lids. The LLT values need to be interpreted in this context. Neither of these devices altered corneal topography metrics.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×