Clinical Results of Intraductal Meibomian Gland Probing Combined with Intense Pulsed Light in Treating Patients with Refractory Obstructive Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Xiaodan Huang,Qiyu Qin,Linping Wang,Jiao Zheng,Lin,Xiuming Jin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-019-1219-6
2019-01-01
Abstract:Background This study aims to optimize the therapeutic regimen for refractory obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction (o-MGD) patients by combining intraductal meibomian gland probing (MGP) and intense pulsed light (IPL) to enhance their positive effects and reduce their limitations. Methods This randomized, assessor blind study includes 45 patients (90 eyes) with refractory o-MGD who were divided into 3 groups via allocation concealment: IPL (group I, received an IPL treatment course: 3 times at 3-week intervals), MGP (group II, received MGP one time), and combined MGP-IPL (group III, MGP first followed by an IPL treatment course). Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness score (SPEED), tear break-up time (TBUT), corneal fluorescein staining (CFS), meibum grade, and lid margin finding results were assessed at baseline, 3 weeks after final treatment for groups I and III, 3 and 12 weeks after MGP for group II. Six months after final treatment, the SPEED and willingness to receive any treatment again were also collected for all groups. Paired Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney U with Bonferroni correction, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for data analysis. Results For all 3 groups, all previously mentioned indexes improved significantly following treatment (P<0.01). MGP-IPL was better than IPL and MGP in terms of post-treatment SPEED, TBUT, meibum grade, and lid telangiectasia (P<0.05/3). Furthermore, the MGP-IPL was better than IPL in terms of lid tenderness and better than MGP in terms of orifice abnormality (P< 0.05/3). Six months later, the SPEED for the MGP-IPL was also significantly lower than other groups (P<0.05/3). Moreover, no patients in the MGP-IPL group expressed the need to be treated again compared to 35.7% or 20% of patients in the IPL or MGP groups, respectively. Conclusions Compared with IPL or MGP alone, the combination MGP-IPL produced best results in relieving all signs and symptoms and helping patients attain long-lasting symptom relief. Trial registration http://clinicaltrials.gov , ChiCTR1900021273 (retrospectively registered February 9, 2019).