Skip to main content
Erschienen in:

Open Access 15.06.2024 | REVIEW

Vectored Thermal Pulsation as a Treatment for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Review Spanning 15 Years

verfasst von: Caroline A. Blackie, David Murakami, Eric Donnenfeld, Heather S. Oliff

Erschienen in: Ophthalmology and Therapy | Ausgabe 8/2024

Abstract

The LipiFlow Thermal Pulsation System received its first marketing clearance for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) 13 years ago. Since then, the evidence evaluating the effectiveness and safety of LipiFlow as a treatment for MGD has grown significantly. The objective of this comprehensive review was to summarize all clinical reports evaluating the effectiveness and safety of LipiFlow over the past 15 years. The literature was systematically reviewed, and 55 unique articles had subjective (patient-reported outcomes) and objective (meibomian gland function, tear production, and ocular staining) outcomes for extraction. Data were collected from 2101 patients and 3521 eyes treated with LipiFlow. Of these, effectiveness was evaluated in 2041 patients and 3401 eyes, and safety was evaluated in 1448 patients and 2443 eyes. Taken together, the studies demonstrate that a single 12-min treatment with LipiFlow safely improves signs and symptoms of MGD and associated evaporative dry eye disease (DED), and the benefits persist up to 3 years in some cases. The findings are corroborated by multiple meta-analyses and consensus guidelines. While some studies showed that daily eyelid hygiene, warm compress, and/or massage had a similar benefit to a single LipiFlow, these treatments were limited by inconvenience, discomfort, and non-compliance. The majority of studies evaluating safety reported no discomfort or pain associated with LipiFlow treatment, which supports the patient acceptability of LipiFlow therapy. All adverse events (AEs) related to LipiFlow were transient, non-vision-threatening, and did not require treatment. No studies reported serious AEs. The data obtained from 55 studies conducted globally overwhelmingly show that LipiFlow is effective and safe for the treatment of MGD and associated evaporative DED. The conclusions are supported by the diversity of the patient populations (geography, race, disease severity, and diagnosis), the large population treated with LipiFlow, the meta-analyses, and that this review analyzed all published clinical studies to date.
Key Summary Points
Data from 2101 patients and 3521 eyes treated with LipiFlow indicate that a single 12-min LipiFlow treatment safely improves signs and symptoms of meibomian gland dysfunction.
The benefits of a single LipiFlow persist up to 3 years in some cases.
The majority of studies evaluating safety reported no discomfort or pain associated with LipiFlow treatment, which supports the patient acceptability of LipiFlow therapy.
While some studies showed that compliant daily eyelid hygiene, warm compress, and/or massage had a similar benefit to a single LipiFlow, these treatments were limited by inconvenience, discomfort, and non-compliance.

Introduction

Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is the main cause of evaporative dry eye disease, which is the most prevalent type of dry eye disease (DED) globally [1, 2]. DED is a multifactorial condition likely to require multiple treatment interventions; however, diagnosing and treating MGD is a core component of overall DED management, a majority of the time [3]. The International Workshop on MGD defines it as “a chronic, diffuse abnormality of the meibomian glands, commonly characterized by terminal duct obstruction and/or qualitative/quantitative changes in the glandular secretion. It may result in alteration of the tear film, symptoms of eye irritation, clinically apparent inflammation, and ocular surface disease” [4]. A systematic review that included literature from 16 countries and 26,063 patients concluded that 70.4% of patients with dry eye and no other comorbidities have MGD, and 41.7% of patients across all ages had MGD without ocular symptoms [5].
Over the past 15 years, our understanding of MGD has changed significantly. Historically, MGD was considered predominantly an inflammatory and hyposecretory condition, and was only diagnosed in its latest and most challenging to treat stage [6]. Currently, we understand that the most prevalent etiology of MGD is intraductal meibum stagnation, which slowly reduces meibomian gland function over time. If left undiagnosed and untreated, MGD will advance and ultimately present as the more traditional inflammatory condition. In its earliest stage, non-obvious MGD is only diagnosable by assessing gland function [6] requiring physical manipulation of the eyelids (the look, lift, pull, push examination) [7]. This is because the longer-term sequelae of chronic and untreated obstruction, such as telangiectasia and thickening of the lid margin, anterior displacement of the mucocutaneous junction, and puckering of the gland orifices, are not yet present [6].
As our understanding of MGD has evolved, and so have the treatment options. Traditionally, the treatment for MGD has been a combination of heat and massage placed on the external surface of the ocular adnexa to melt and discharge the meibum that is characteristically solid at body temperature in patients with MGD [8]. This is typically performed with warm compresses and administered at home [3, 4]. More recently, additional treatments have emerged including multiple attempts to standardize and optimize warm compress treatment through the innovation of heated masks of varying technological complexity. In the late 1970s, a study on a small group of patients with meibomitis demonstrated that manually expressing the obstructed contents from the meibomian glands resulted in improved ocular surface health and tear film stability [9]. This finding was later replicated in a group of contact lens wearers with non-obvious MGD where manual expression significantly reduced their symptoms of contact lens discomfort [10]. Despite the knowledge that manual gland expression was efficacious in restoring ocular surface homeostasis, it was not well incorporated into eye care practice for a variety of reasons, including the discomfort associated with manual expression.
The overall goal of MGD treatment is to restore gland function, which is foundational to the formation of a healthy tear film and essential for ocular surface homeostasis [11, 12]. MGD alters the molecular composition of the meibum so that greater than normal body temperature is required for liquefaction of the contents, which is required for the meibum to spread in the tear film [8]. Hence, heating the eyelids increases the flow of meibum lipid. In a breakthrough discovery in 2010, we learned that therapeutic heat (42.5 °C) applied directly to the inner eyelid surface, which allows greater access of heat to the meibomian glands than applying the heat to the external eyelid, rapidly liquifies the gland contents greatly, reducing the amount of pressure necessary to move the contents out of the glands during expression [13]. However, due to the ability of the eyelid vasculature to wick the heat away from the heated ocular adnexa, pressure is best applied simultaneously with the heat. In 2010, a study was published introducing a novel treatment approach for MGD whereby therapeutic heat (42.5 °C) was applied directly to the inner eyelid surface, coupled with simultaneous and directional massage of the glands applied to the external eyelid surface [13]. This breakthrough treatment was later launched as the LipiFlow thermal pulsation treatment in 2012 [14].
Eyelid warming via application of warm towels or commercialized eye masks/patches, thermal pulsation, and intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy are the most commonly used treatments for MGD leveraging heat as a component of the therapy [15]. Other treatments include lid debris debridement, manual gland expression (forcefully squeezing the eyelids between a rigid object such as a glass rod, Q-tip, or metal paddle and finger or rigid object), meibomian gland (MG) probing with an intraductal stainless-steel wire to mechanically open the MG orifices, massage to express the MGs, off-label use of macrolide or tetracycline family antibiotics (topical or oral), lipid-containing eye drops, off-label use of anti-inflammatory eye drops and perfluorohexyloctane eye drops [1517]. However, treatment of MGD usually begins with eyelid hygiene, warm compresses, and ocular lubricants prior to progressing to the office-based or prescription managements when symptoms do not abate [3, 12].
The LipiFlow Thermal Pulsation System is a vectored thermal pulsation therapy intended for the application of localized heat and pressure therapy in adult patients (18 years or older) with chronic cystic conditions of the eyelids, including MGD (also known as evaporative dry eye or lipid deficiency dry eye) [18]. The system first received marketing clearance in 2011. It consists of a console, reusable cable, and a dome-shaped, single-use sterile device known as the Activator. The Activator includes an eyelid warmer that resembles a large scleral lens that rests lightly on the conjunctiva of the eye and an eye cup that cradles the outer surface of the upper and lower eyelids and applies regulated pressure through an inflatable air bladder (Figs. 1 and 2). The eyelid warmer portion of the Activator is vaulted away from the cornea, creating an air gap to prevent heat from reaching cornea and ocular surface. Thus, the eyelid warmer provides controlled, outward directional (away from the eye) heat to the palpebral conjunctival surfaces only. Over a 12-min period, heat is transferred through the inner surface of the eyelids, warming all of the MGs in the upper and lower eyelids simultaneously. It is important for the heat to be maintained at a high enough temperature to produce liquefaction of the MG contents [8]. Meanwhile, the air bladder in the Activator intermittently inflates to provide controlled massage of the eyelids via a rolling motion. The eyelids are massaged in the direction of the MG orifices to express the liquified contents. For safety considerations, the massaging pressure and heat are not applied to the eyeball. In 2021, the Activator was updated (called Activator Clear) with translucent bladders to enable better positioning. There were no changes to the bladder design or eyelid warmer. A prospective, open-label, multicenter clinical study reported that the investigators agreed or strongly agreed that the translucent components made it easy to access and confidently position the Activator on the patient’s eye, and 100% of the LipiFlow treatments were successful [19].
We last reviewed the LipiFlow literature in 2015 [20]. At that time, six clinical trials and two case reports had been published (between 2011 and 2015). Together those eight studies demonstrated that a single 12-min treatment with LipiFlow significantly increased MG function and improved symptoms. At present, it is 13 years since LipiFlow received its first marketing clearance; accordingly, the evidence evaluating the effectiveness and safety of LipiFlow has grown. The objective of this review was to reflect on the clinical contributions LipiFlow has provided in shaping our understanding of managing ocular surface health by summarizing all clinical reports evaluating the effectiveness and safety of LipiFlow over the past 15 years.

Methods

We systematically examined the literature documenting the outcomes of LipiFlow on MGs and DED. Searches of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Springer Books, and OVID databases were conducted in March 2024 to gather relevant publications on the safety and effectiveness of LipiFlow (Table 1). The structured search approach followed the guidance of Kable et al. [21]. The following search terms were used: “meibomian gland dysfunction,” “LipiFlow treatment,” “MGD,” “vectored thermal pulsation therapy,” “dry eye disease,” and “ocular surface disease.” Included articles met the following criteria: (1) published from January 2010 to March 2024, (2) evaluated LipiFlow or LipiFlow compared to other devices or management strategies, (3) original research studies, (4) meta-analyses, and (5) global consensus guidelines. Excluded articles were (1) published in 2009 or earlier, indicating that a LipiFlow prototype was evaluated; (2) evaluated ocular surface/dry eye devices or other home therapy options without including LipiFlow; (3) evaluated only pharmaceutical drugs; (4) did not pertain to LipiFlow/MGD/dry eye/ocular surface; (5) were conference abstracts/presentations; and (6) were previously published reviews. There were no language restrictions; articles not in English were professionally translated to English. This review is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals that were performed by any of the authors.
Table 1
Search process and number of articles retrieved
Search engine
Search terms
Number of articles retrieved
Number met inclusion criteria
PubMed
S1, S3
47
41
PubMed
S1, S4
36
35
PubMed
S1, S5
36
33
PubMed
S1, S6
29
28
PubMed
S2, S3
13
12
PubMed
S2, S4
2
1
PubMed
S2, S5
13
11
PubMed
S2, S6
7
7
OVID, Scopus, Springer Books, Cochrane Library
S1, S3
105
68
OVID, Scopus, Springer Books, Cochrane Library
S1, S4
85
54
OVID, Scopus, Springer Books, Cochrane Library
S1, S5
54
27
OVID, Scopus, Springer Books, Cochrane Library
S1, S6
65
36
OVID, Scopus, Springer Books, Cochrane Library
S2, S3
26
15
OVID, Scopus, Springer Books, Cochrane Library
S2, S4
24
12
OVID, Scopus, Springer Books, Cochrane Library
S2, S5
27
12
OVID, Scopus, Springer Books, Cochrane Library
S2, S6
25
9
Search terms abbreviations: S1, LipiFlow treatment; S2, vectored thermal pulsation therapy; S3, meibomian gland dysfunction; S4, MGD; S5, dry eye disease; S6, ocular surface disease
A total of 568 articles were retrieved, and 387 articles met the inclusion criteria. After removing duplicates, 61 unique articles were available for review. Refer to the study flow diagram (Fig. 3) for a summary of the screening and article inclusion. There is no standardization of the outcome measures used to evaluate clinical effectiveness of MGD treatment however it is critical to demonstrate that MG function has improved as a result of any MGD treatment. There are additional measures, often pertaining to accompanying DED that are used to assess the impact of treating MGD in a patient with comorbid DED. We chose to collect subjective and objective data related to the following endpoints because these were most frequently reported in the literature: patient-reported outcomes (Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness [SPEED] and Ocular Surface Disease Index [OSDI]); MG function (meibomian gland secretion score [MGSS], meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion [MGYLS], and meibomian gland expression [MGE]); tear film quality (tear break-up time [TBUT] and noninvasive tear break-up time [NIKBUT]); ocular staining (corneal and conjunctival); and safety (adverse events [AEs], pain, changes in intraocular pressure [IOP], and changes in visual acuity [VA]).

Results

Clinical studies were located evaluating LipiFlow in the management of dry eye in patients with DED/MGD (N = 45 studies), cataract (N = 7), glaucoma (N = 1), refractive surgery (N = 4), and chalazion (N = 1).

Dry Eye/MGD

Randomized Controlled Trials

A total of 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified that evaluated the effectiveness of LipiFlow for treating MGD, and 15 studies included the outcomes of interest. The study design, sample size, last follow-up, effectiveness and safety data, and the main outcomes of all 17 RCTs are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Summary of RCTs evaluating LipiFlow to treat MGD
Author/design/country
Patients (eyes)/age, mean (SD)
Last FU
Study arms
MG function
Mean (SD)
Patient-reported outcomes
Mean (SD)
NIKBUT/TBUT
Mean (SD)
Staining
Overall conclusion and safety
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Meng 2023   [22]
Prospective, randomized, observer-masked
China
N = 50 patients with MGD;
LF: N = 25 patients (50 eyes), 58 (12) years;
CL: N = 25
patients (50 eyes), 58 (12) years
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: Lid warming BID with EyeGiene Insta-Warmth patch and massage for 2 weeks
MGSS
LF:8.8 (2.2)
CL: 9.5 (3.1)
MGYLS
LF: 3.7 (0.85)
CL: 4.1 (1.1)
MGSS
LF:12.8 (3.9)*
CL: 10.2 (3.3)
MGYLS
LF:5.5 (1.2)*†
CL: 4.4 (1.2)
SPEED
LF: 7.1 (2.7)
CL: 7.2 (2.2)
SPEED
LF: 3.8 (1.5)*†
CL: 6.6 (2.8)
TBUT
LF: 2.3 (0.96)
CL: 2.7 (1.4)
TBUT
LF: 5.6 (2.2)*†
CL: 4.0 (1.9)*
Corneal
LF: 2.8 (1.8)
CL: 2.2 (1.3)
Corneal
LF: 1.2 (1.2)*
CL: 1.2 (1.2)
LF Tx can ameliorate subjective systems of MGD and markedly improve MG function for at least 3 months.
Safety NR
Wesley 2022 [23]
Prospective, randomized, multicenter, assessor-masked, parallel group
USA
N = 236 patients with MGD;
LF: 117 patients (234 eyes), 56 (14) years;
iLUX: N = 119 (238 eyes), 58 (13) years
12 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
Single Tx Systane iLux Dry Eye System thermal pulsation
Note: LF was the control
MGSS
LF: 6.5 (3.8)
iLux: 6.6 (3.7)
MGSS
LF: 23.4 (11.4)
iLux: 22.9 (11.3)
IDEEL-SB
LF: 57.2 (14.6)
iLux: 55.8 (15.9)
IDEEL-SB
LF: 36.0 (18.1)
iLux: 34.4 (16.7)
NIKBUT
LF: 8.0 (3.0)
iLux: 8.0 (3.0)
NIKBUT
LF: 10.1 (4.0)
iLux: 10.7 (4.6)
Corneal
LF: 1.9 (2.4)
iLux: 2.1 (2.9)
Corneal
LF: 0.6 (1.2)
iLux: 0.7 (1.5)
iLux was noninferior to LF
AEs
None
No significant biomicroscopy findings
Holland 2022 [24]
Randomized single-masked, multicenter, non-inferiority, post-market
USA
N = 235 patients with DED and MGD, LF:120 patients (240 eyes), 55 (15) years
TearCare: 115 patients (230 eyes), 57 (14) years
1 month
Single 12-min LF Tx
Single 15-min Tx with TearCare
NR
NR
OSDI
LF:51.7 (15.3)
TearCare: 51.7 (14.8)
SANDE
LF:77.2 (15.8)
TearCare: 70.6 (16.8)
OSDI
LF:27.1 (19.0)*
TearCare: 22.6 (17.2)*§
SANDE
LF:34.0 (28.1)*
TearCare: 29.4 (26.6)*
NR
NR
NR
NR
LF and the TearCare consistently improved DED symptoms.
Safety NR
Li 2021 [25]
Prospective, randomized, observer-masked
China
N = 54 patients with MGD (108 eyes),
LF:54 eyes, 42 (11) years
MiboFlo: 54 eyes, 44 (11) years
2 months after first Tx
Single 12-min LF Tx
MiboFlo ThermoFlo Tx, three
10-min Tx, each 2 weeks apart. Tx was instantly followed by
eyelid compression
Note: LF was the control
MGSS
LF: 11.0 (3.8)
MiboFlo: 9.2 (3.7)
MGYLS
LF: 8.4 (3.7)
MiboFlo: 8.7 (3.6)
MGSS
LF: 4.8 (2.2)*
MiboFlo: 4.8 (2.2)*
MGYLS
LF: 2.9 (2.8)*
MiboFlo: 5.1 (2.3)*
OSDI
LF: 46.1 (17.7)
MiboFlo: 44.3 (1.0)
OSDI
LF: 30.6 (19.9)*
MiboFlo: 28.7 (18.2)*
NIKBUT
LF: 5.8 (3.0)
MiboFlo: 6.4 (3.5)
NIKBUT
LF: 5.9 (2.7)
MiboFlo: 6.0 (2.7)
Corneal
LF: 0.38 (0.63)
MiboFlo: 0.16 (0.43)
Corneal
LF: 0.18 (0.50)
MiboFlo: 0.02 (0.15)
OSDI, MGYLS, and MGSS improved from BL in both groups, and
improvements were maintained at 2 months
AEs
None
No safety-related changes in IOP or VA
Gupta 2022 [26]
Randomized, masked,
multicenter, controlled
USA
N = 141 patients with DED; LF:72 patients (136 eyes), 52 (15) years;
TearCare: 69 patients (134 eyes), 56 (14) years
1 month
Single 12-min LF Tx
Single 15-min Tx with TearCare plus MGX
Note: LF was the control
MGSS
LF:6.29
TearCare: 6.54
MGYLS
LF:5.62
TearCare: 5.42
MGSS
LF:17.38*
TearCare: 17.74*
MGYLS
LF:9.93*
TearCare: 9.76*
OSDI
LF:51.1
TearCare: 52.9
SANDE
LF:73.2
TearCare: 68.4
OSDI
LF:27.7*
TearCare: 24.2*
SANDE
LF:33.8*
TearCare: 30.1*
TBUT
LF:4.49
TearCare: 4.62
TBUT
LF:7.08*
TearCare: 7.64*
Corneal
LF:2.51
TearCare: 2.51
Conjunct
LF:4.85
TearCare: 4.08
Corneal
LF:1.93
TearCare: 2.25*
Conjunct
LF:4.07
TearCare: 3.43*
TearCare was as effective as LF at alleviating signs and symptoms of DED
Device-related AEs
LF: N = 4   (= 1 blepharitis,   N = 2 foreign body sensation, and N = 1 severe eye dryness)
TearCare:     N = 3 (N = 1 SPK, N = 1 chalazion,    N = 1 blepharitis)
Booranapong 2020 [27]
Prospective, observer-masked, randomized, controlled
Thailand
N = 28 patients with moderate MGD (56 eyes), 54 (14) years; LF: 28 eyes;
CL: contralateral eye (28 eyes)
6 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: warm compress for 5 min BID for 3 months
MGYLS
LF: 2.6 (2.8)
CL: 2.5 (2.3)
MGYLS
LF: 3.1 (2.1)
CL: 2.7 (2.2)
SPEED
LF: 9.5 (4.5)
CL: 9.2 (4.4)
SPEED
LF: 7.8 (5.3)*
CL: 7.9 (5.8)
NR
NR
NR
NR
Both Tx relieved symptoms
AEs
LF: N = NR (device-related AE of eye discomfort/pain among
patients with small eyes, narrow palpebral fissure, or deep-set eyes)
Tauber 2020 [28]
Randomized open-label, controlled, multicenter
USA
N = 142 patients with DED and MGD, 55 (15) years
LF: 70 patients (140 eyes), age NR;
iLUX: N = 71 (142 eyes), age NR
1 month
Single 12-min LF Tx
Single Tx Systane iLux Dry Eye System thermal pulsation
Note: LF was the control in this study
MGSS
LF OD: 6.2 (4.9)
LF OS: 6.4 (4.4)
iLux OD: 6.0 (3.7)
iLux OS: 5.9 (4.1)
MGSS
LF OD: 24.3 (11.2) *
LF OS: 23.3 (11.9) *
iLux OD: 23.2 (12.1)*
iLux OS: 23.8 (11.4)*
OSDI
LF: 50.6 (18.7)
iLux: 50.7 (18.6)
OSDI
LF: 22.6 (19.8) *
iLux: 19.5 (17.0)*
TBUT
LF OD: 3.9 (2.0)
LF OS: 3.8 (2.0)
iLux OD: 3.9 (1.9)
iLux OS: 3.7 (1.8)
TBUT
LF OD: 6.6 (3.2) *
LF OS: 6.5 (3.1) *
iLux OD: 6.7 (3.7)*
iLux OS: 6.5 (3.6)*
Corneal
LF OD: 2.0 (2.2)
LF OS: 2.5 (2.6)
iLux OD: 2.1 (2.2)
iLux OS: 2.3 (2.2)
Corneal
LF OD: 0.9 (1.6) *
LF OS: 1.2 (1.6) *
iLux OD: 1.5 (2.4)*
iLux OS: 1.4 (2.2)*
Both Tx had significant improvements in MG function and symptoms
Device-related AEs
LF: N = 0
iLux: N = 4 patients (N = 2 burning sensations without skin findings and N = 1 petechial hemorrhaging in lower lids, N = 1 transient decrease in BSCVA with findings consistent with exposure keratitis). No other abnormal findings
Tauber 2020 [33]
Single-center, 6-week, prospective, randomized, single-masked (investigator)
USA
N = 50 patients with inflammatory MGD;
LF: N = 25 patients (25 eyes), 67 (9) years;
Liftegrast: N = 25 patients (25 eyes), 64 (8) years
42 days
Single 12-min LF Tx plus warm compress/lid compression BID
Lifitegrast ophthalmic
solution 5% BID plus warm compress/ lid compression BID for 42 days
MGSS
LF: 1.8 (0.55)
Lifitegrast: 2.1 (0.49)
MG patency
LF: 5.4 (2.1)
Lifitegrast: 4.8 (2.9)
MGSS
LF: 1.9 (0.81)
Lifitegrast: 1.8 (0.97)
MG patency
LF: 5.3 (2.6)
Lifitegrast: 6.1 (2.8)
VAS Dryness
LF: 1.9 (0.83)
Lifitegrast: 2.4 (0.70)
VAS Dryness
LF: 1.4 (0.71)
Lifitegrast: 1.4 (0.91)†
NR
NR
Corneal
LF: 0.84 (0.85)
Lifitegrast: 1.5 (1.0)
Corneal
LF: 0.96 (0.98)
Lifitegrast: 1.0 (1.3)†
Lifitegrast significantly improved symptoms and signs compared with LF
AEs
None
Ambaw 2020 [81]
Single-center, investigator-masked interventional
Singapore
N = 53 patients, LF: 35 patients (70 eyes);
CL: 18 patients (36 eyes)
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: eyelid warming (warm towel, Blephasteam or Eyegiene) 3x/day for 3 months
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Both Tx reduced pro-inflammatory molecules generated by lipoxygenase and oxidative stress
He 2018        [29]
Single-blind, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled
China
N = 50 patients with MGD (100 eyes);
LF: N = 25 patients (50 eyes), 40 (12) years;
CL: N = 25 patients (50 eyes), 38 (12) years
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
15-min Tx with warm eye patch (EyeGiene Insta-Warmth) 1x/day for 2 weeks in office
MGYLS
LF: 3.6 (3.8)
CL: 4.2 (3.9)
MGYLS
LF: 19.7 (1.0)*
CL: 16.2 (10.8)
OSDI
LF: 55.0 (18.0)
CL: 47.3 (18.1)
OSDI
LF: 27.5 (18.1)*†
CL: 34.2 (19.8)*
TBUT
LF: 6.9 (4.3)
CL: 26.3 (6.2)
TBUT
LF: 8.4 (3.7)*†
CL: 19.0 (9.9)
Corneal + 
Conjunct
LF:2.5 (0.8)
CL: 2.5 (0.9)
Corneal + 
Conjunct
LF:2.1 (0.3)*†
CL: 2.3 (0.7)
Both LF and CL were effective at treating MGD. However, LF Tx was more effective and achieved better 3 months long-term efficacy than CL
AEs
None. No change in IOP
Blackie 2018 [34]
Prospective, open-label, randomized, crossover, multicenter
USA and Canada
N = 55 patients, contact lens wearer;
LF: N = 29 patients (58 eyes), 40 (13) years
CL: N = 26 patients (52 eyes), 44 (16) years;
CO: N = 25 patients (50 eyes) in CL who were CO to LF
3 months; CO:
1 month
Single 12-min LF Tx plus blinking exercises for 1 month post-Tx to foster healthy blinking habits
CL: untreated
MGSS
LF: 8.0 (3.5)
CL: 8.2 (4.2)
MGYLS
LF: 1.9 (1.6)
CL: 2.1 (1.7)
MGSS
LF: 20.4 (9.1)†
CL: 9.6 (5.7)
CO: 22.4 (9.4)†
MGYLS
LF: 7.1 (3.6)†
CL: 2.5 (2.2)
CO: 7.9 (3.6)†
SPEED
LF: 14.5 (4.8)
CL: 15.3 (4.5)
OSDI
LF: 39.6 (16.4)
CL: 40.8 (20.3)
SPEED
LF: 6.1 (4.6)†
CL: 14.5 (5.3)
CO: 7.4 (5.0)†
OSDI
LF: 13.4 (15.5)†
CL: 37.5 (23.8)
CO: 13.8 (11.2)†
TBUT
LF: 4.8 (2.7)
CL: 4.6 (2.0)
TBUT
LF: 6.5 (4.0)†
CL: 4.3 (1.7)
CO: 5.3 (2.4)†
Conjunct
LF: 3.5 (3.0)
CL: 4.3 (3.6)
Conjunct
LF: 3.4 (3.3)†
CL: 5.6 (4.5)
CO: 3.6 (3.7)
LF Tx improved signs and symptoms of DED and increased mean comfortable contact wearing time by 4 h, approximately doubling the comfortable wearing time, and was sustained for 3 months
AEs
None related to LF. N = 11 AEs unrelated LF (N = 5 ocular, N = 6 systemic). Slit-lamp findings not considered AEs were observed immediately after LF: eyelid edema, conjunctival edema, conjunctival hyperemia/injection, petechiae, and SPK and were transient and did not require Tx
Hagen 2018  [30]
Prospective, randomized, parallel group, single-masked
USA
N = 28 patients with moderate-to-severe
MGD (50 eyes);
LF: N = 14 patients (26 eyes), 52 (6) years;
Doxy: N = 14 patients (24 eyes), 50 (14) years
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
Oral doxy daily for 3 months (100 mg BID for the first 14 days and 100 mg 1x/day for days 15–90)
MGYLS
LF:4.0 (1.5)
Doxy: 4.6 (1.4)
MGYLS
LF: 7.7 (5.5)*
Doxy:10.6 (6.0)*
SPEED
LF: 11.0 (3.3)
Doxy: 13.4 (4.2)
SPEED
LF: 5.4 (2.2)*†
Doxy: 9.4 (5.5)*
TBUT
LF:6.3 (2.0)
Doxy: 6.9 (2.6)
TBUT
LF: 8.4 (1.8)*
Doxy: 7.6 (2.0)
Corneal
LF: 0.4 (0.5)
Doxy: 0.2 (0.4)
Conjunct
LF: 1.7 (1.9)
Doxy: 2.4 (1.9)
Corneal
LF:0.1 (0.3)*
Doxy: 0.1 (0.3)
Conjunct
LF: 0.6 (0.8)*
Doxy: 1.1 (1.5)*
LF was significantly more effective than doxy at treating signs and symptoms of MGD and was a favorable alternative to doxy
AEs
LF: N = 0
Doxy: N = 2 (stomach upset/intolerance)
Yeo 2016 [82]
Singapore
N = 90 patients,
LF: 24 patients (48 eyes)
Hot towel:  N = 22 patients (44 eyes), EyeGiene:  N = 22 patients (44 eyes); Blephasteam: N = 22 patients (44 eyes)
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
Details of other Tx NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
LF Tx significantly reduced tear evaporation rate
Finis 2014    [31]
Prospective, randomized, crossover,
observer-masked
Germany
This is a long-term FU of Finis 2014 [32]
N = 26 patients with MGD (52 eyes), 50 (22) years;
LF: N = 17 patients (34 eyes), 45 (23) years;
CL: N = 9 patients (18 eyes) with CL for 3 months prior to LF
6 months post-LF
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: Lid warming BID and massage for 3 months
MGYLS
LF: 2.9
(1.6)
MGYLS
LF: 6.4
(4.6)*
OSDI
LF: 42 (19)
SPEED
LF: 16 (7)
CL: 15.9 (6.6)
CO: 14.7 (7.7)
OSDI
LF: 33 (21)*
SPEED
LF: 12 (7)*
CL: 14.7 (7.1)
CO: 12.6 (6.5)
TBUT
LF: 9.5 (8.7)
TBUT
LF: 10.0 (6.7)
Corneal + 
Conjunct
LF: 2.0 (2.0)
Corneal + 
Conjunct
LF: 2.4 (2.3)
LF reduces subjective symptoms and
objective measures of MGD over 6 months but has no effect on atrophy of MG as visualized by meibography.
Safety NR
Finis 2014    [32]
Prospective, randomized, crossover,
observer-masked
Germany
N = 31 patients with MGD;
LF: N = 17 patients (34 eyes), 45 (23) years;
CL: N = 14
patients, (28 eyes) 50 (19) years
After completing the initial
study, 9 CL patients (18 eyes)
completed
a 3-month CO
with LF
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: Lid warming BID and massage for 3 months
MGYLS
LF: 2.5
(1.4)
CL: 2.1 (1.3)
CO: 4.1
(2.5)
MGYLS
LF: 5.5
(3.6)*
CL: 4.6
(3.8)*
CO:5.8
(3.2)
OSDI
LF: 46.2 (14.8)
CL: 40.1 (16.7)
CO: 39.7 (26.3)
SPEED
LF: 16.8 (5.6)
CL: 15.9 (6.6)
CO: 14.7 (7.7)
OSDI
LF: 34.6 (19.6)*
CL: 40.0 (23.4)
CO: 32.8 (24.4)
SPEED
LF: 14.5 (7.2)
CL: 14.7 (7.1)
CO: 12.6 (6.5)
NIBUT
LF: 7.9 (8.5)
CL: 7.7 (6.1)
CO: 6.7 (6.1)
NIBUT
LF: 9.9 (7.0)
CL: 7.5 (6.1)
CO: 7.3 (5.1)
Corneal + Conjunct
LF: 2.6 (2.4)
CL:1.9 (2.4)
CO: 1.4 (1.4)
Corneal + 
Conjunct
LF: 3.5 (2.7)
CL:1.1 (1.4)
CO: 3.0 (2.2)
Single LF Tx was at least as effective
as a 3-month BID lid margin hygiene regimen.
Safety NR
Baumann 2014 [35]
Single-center, prospective, randomized
France
N = 30 patients with moderate-to-severe DED and MGD;
LF: N = 15 patients (30 eyes), 65 (12) years;
CL: N = 15 patients (30 eyes), 65 (11) years
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx plus blinking exercises
CL: MeiboPatch heat mask for 10 min and massage for 10 min 1x/day for 3 months plus blinking exercises
MGYLS
LF: 3.3
(1.7)
CL: 5.7 (3.2)
MGYLS
LF: 8.5
(2.4)*
CL: 9.4 (4.3)*
OSDI
LF: 51.0 (20.8)
CL: 42.9 (20.3)
SPEED
LF: 16.5 (4.6)
CL: 13.5 (3.1)
OSDI
LF: 27.0 (17.6)*
CL: 23.5 (15.3)*
SPEED
LF: 8.0 (5.3)*
CL: 8.9 (5.2)*
TBUT
LF: 4.5 (2.3)
CL: 5.2 (2.2)
TBUT
LF: 6.8 (2.5)*
CL: 6.9 (2.2)*
Corneal + 
conjunct
LF: 1.0 (1.1)
CL:1.8 (1.2)
Corneal + conjunct
LF: 0.4 (0.8)*
CL:0.7 (0.7)*
LF Tx is highly effective in treating MGD. The results for 3 months of CL Tx were excellent, but not convenient for the patient
Randomized but MGD more severe in LF group at BL
Safety NR
Lane 2012 [14]
Randomized, controlled, open-label, crossover, multicenter
USA
N = 139 patients with MGD;
LF: N = 69 patients (138 eyes), age NR;
CL: N = 70 patients (140 eyes), age NR;
CO: N = 68 patients (136 eyes) in CL group who were CO to LF
LF: 1 month; CL: 2 weeks; CO: 2 weeks
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: Warm compress (iHeat) for 5 min/day for 2 weeks
MGSS
LF: 6.3 (3.5)
CL: 5.6 (3.9)
MGYLS
LF: 0.6 (0.9)
CL: 0.4 (0.8)
MGSS
LF: 14.3 (8.7) at 2 weeks*†;
16.7 (8.7) at 1 month*
CL: 6.1 (5.6)
CO: 11.7 (7.3)†
MGYLS
LF: 2.0 (2.9) at 2 weeks*†;
2.6 (3.6) at 1 month*
CL: 0.5 (1.1)
CO: 1.2 (1.9)†
SPEED
LF: 14.3 (4.8)
CL: 14.8 (4.8)
OSDI
LF: 32.0 (20.0)
CL: 34.7 (19.6)
SPEED
LF: 8.1 (5.5) at 2 weeks*†;
7.6 (5.8) at 1 month *
CL: 11.2 (5.4)
CO: 7.9 (5.6)†
OSDI
LF: 17.3 (17.2) at 2 weeks*†;
16.6 (18.1) at 1 month *
CL: 26.9 (18.2)
CO: 21.0 (18.3)†
TBUT
LF: 5.5 (2.9)
CL: 5.4 (3.5)
TBUT
LF: 6.9 (5.0) at 2 weeks*†;
7.4 (5.5) at 1 month *
CL: 5.3 (3.5)
CO: 6.3 (4.7)†
Corneal
LF: 2.2 (2.2)
Conjunct
LF: 1.3 (2.1)
Corneal
LF: 1.5 (1.7) at 1 month*
Conjunct
LF: 1.6 (2.5) at 1 month*
LF Tx improved signs and symptoms over 1 month
The safety profile of LF Tx reflects a low occurrence of non-serious, transient side effects that resolve quickly and do not require medical treatment
AEs
LF: N = 4 (N = 3 eyelid pain, N = 1 conjunctival vascular injection)
CL: N = 2 (burning)
Mean discomfort score during LF Tx was 1.4 (scale 0–10). Slit-lamp findings not considered AEs most frequently were trace to mild conjunct injection, hyperemia, or redness; and trace or mild petechial hemorrhages on the eyelid or conjunct immediately or 1 day post-Tx, which fully resolved by the 2-week visit without Tx. No changes in the intraocular findings except for 1 case of posterior vitreous floaters unrelated to device
Units of measure are as follows: IDEEL-SB = points, score 0–100; MGSS = points, score 0–45; MGYLS = number of functional glands; NIKBUT = seconds; OSDI = points, score 0–100; SANDE = visual analog scale score, 0–100; SPEED = points, score 0–28; staining = scale score; TBUT = seconds; VAS = scale score
Treatment manufacturers are as follows: Blephasteam (Laboratoires Thea, Clermont-Ferrand, France); EyeGiene® Insta-Warmth™ patch (Eyedetec Medical Inc, Danville, CA); iHeat (manufacturer unknown); Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5% (Xiidra; Shire, Lexington, MA); MeiboPatch® heat mask (Butterflies Eyecare, Banbury, UK); MiboFlo ThermoFlo (Mibo Medical, Dallas, TX); Systane iLux Dry Eye System thermal pulsation (Alcon, Ft Worth, Tx); TearCare (Sight Sciences, Menlo Park, CA)
AEs adverse events, BID 2 times per day, BL baseline, CL control, CO crossover group, conjunct conjunctiva, DED dry eye disease, doxy doxycycline, FU follow-up, IDEEL-SB Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life—Symptom Bother, IOP intraocular pressure, LF LipiFlow, MG meibomian glands, MGD meibomian gland dysfunction, MGSS meibomian gland secretion score (secretion quality), MGX manual gland expression, MGYLS meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (glands with secretion capacity), min minutes, NIKBUT noninvasive keratograph break-up time, NR not reported, OD right eye, OS left eye, OSDI ocular surface disease index, pre pretreatment, post post-treatment, SANDE Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye, SD standard deviation, SPEED standard patient evaluation of eye dryness, SPK superficial punctate keratitis, TBUT tear break-up time, Tx treatment, VA visual acuity, VAS visual analog scale
1Data only presented in a figure. We did not extrapolate the data from the figure to avoid presenting estimated data
*P < 0.05 vs. baseline
P < 0.05 vs. control
§P < 0.05 vs. comparator
Twelve of the 15 RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of a single 12-min LipiFlow treatment in 628 patients (1164 eyes) with MGD [14, 2232]. In addition, a single 12-min LipiFlow treatment was evaluated when combined with warm compress and eyelid compression (one study treating 25 patients, 25 eyes) [33] or blinking exercises (two studies treating 44 patients, 88 eyes) [34, 35]. Together, the 15 RCTs studies evaluated 697 patients (1277 eyes) treated with LipiFlow.
Seven of the 15 RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of LipiFlow compared with various at-home eyelid warming therapies. Specifically, the effectiveness of LipiFlow was compared to eyelid warming plus massage (48 patients, 96 eyes) in three RCTs [22, 31, 32]; eyelid warming (28 patients, 28 eyes) in one RCT [27]; eyelid warming via a patch/mask (95 patients, 190 eyes) in two RCTs [14, 29]; and eyelid warming via a patch/mask plus massage and blinking exercises (15 patients, 30 eyes) in one RCT [35]. All seven studies concluded that LipiFlow was similar or better than the at-home eyelid warming therapies at improving signs and symptoms of MGD 1–6 months post-treatment. Finis et al. reported that at 6 months, symptom improvement was better in LipiFlow-treated patients with less severe MGD (i.e., less dropout at baseline) [31]. Baumann et al. reported that using a heat mask, massage, and blinking exercises daily for 3 months was as effective as single 12-min LipiFlow treatment plus blinking exercises, but the control treatment was not convenient for the patient [35]. He et al. reported that both treatments were effective at treating MGD, but at 3 months LipiFlow was more effective thereby achieving better long-term effectiveness [29].
Five of the 15 RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of LipiFlow compared with other thermal pulsation treatments in patients with MGD. Specifically, the effectiveness of LipiFlow was compared with iLux (190 patients, 380 eyes) in two RCTs [23, 28], TearCare (115 patients, 230 eyes) in one RCT [24]; TearCare plus manual meibomian gland expression (MGX) (69 patients, 134 eyes) in one RCT [26]; and Mibo ThermoFlo (54 patients, 54 eyes) in one RCT [25]. All five studies used LipiFlow as the control group and concluded that the comparator was similar or non-inferior to LipiFlow 1–12 months post-treatment.
Two of the 15 RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of LipiFlow compared with pharmaceutical treatments for DED in patients with MGD. Specifically, the effectiveness of LipiFlow was compared to Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5% twice daily (BID) plus warm compress and eyelid compression (25 patients, 25 eyes) in one RCT [33], and oral doxycycline (14 patients, 24 eyes) in one RCT [30]. The Lifitegrast study concluded that Lifetegrast was better than LipiFlow at improving symptoms of dryness and corneal staining 42 days after treatment [33]. The oral doxycycline study concluded that LipiFlow was better at improving signs and symptoms of MGD 3 months post-treatment [30].
One of the 15 RCTs evaluated contact lens wearers and included an untreated control group (26 patients, 52 eyes), which was later crossed-over to LipiFlow treatment [34]. Blackie et al. concluded that LipiFlow improved signs and symptoms of MGD for 3 months in contact lens wearers and increased the mean comfortable wearing time by 4 h, which approximately doubled the comfortable wearing time.
Together the RCT data demonstrate that a single 12-min LipiFlow treatment was (1) efficacious in improving MG function, patient-reported outcomes, and ocular surface health compared to baseline; (2) was as good or better than alternate therapies; and (3) had a duration of effect up to 12 months [23]. Only one of 15 RCTs concluded that the comparator (Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5% BID plus warm compress and eyelid compression) was better than LipiFlow [33].

Prospective, Controlled, Non-randomized Trials

Three prospective, controlled, non-randomized trials were identified that evaluated the effectiveness of LipiFlow for treating MGD (Table 3). These three studies included 82 patients (87 eyes) treated with LipiFlow [3638]. One study evaluated the effect of LipiFlow plus a dexamethasone intracanalicular insert compared to LipiFlow without the insert (sham insert) and concluded that the addition of a dexamethasone insert provided additional therapeutic benefits at 3 months [36]. The second study evaluated the effect of LipiFlow plus hyaluronic acid eye drops compared to daily massage plus hyaluronic acid eye drops and concluded that both were effective, but the LipiFlow group was more effective at 3 months [37]. The third study compared the effect of LipiFlow with an untreated contralateral eye and concluded that LipiFlow significantly improved MGD compared with baseline and the untreated eye at 3 months [38]. Taken together, the prospective, controlled, non-randomized trials support the effectiveness of LipiFlow in treating MGD, and one study concluded that adding a dexamethasone intracanalicular insert to LipiFlow treatment may improve outcomes [36].
Table 3
Summary of prospective, masked (non-randomized) studies evaluating LipiFlow to treat MGD
Author/design/country
Patients (eyes)/age, mean (SD)
Last FU
Study arms
MG function
Mean (SD)
Patient-reported outcomes
Mean (SD)
NIKBUT/TBUT
Mean (SD)
Staining
Overall conclusion and safety
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Dierker 2022     [36]
Single-center, open-label, prospective, non-randomized, subject-masked, sham-controlled
USA
N = 20 patients with MGD, 59 (11) years;
LF: 19 eyes,
CL: 19 eyes
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx plus Dex intracanalicular insert
CL: Single 12-min LF Tx plus sham punctal dilation
MGSS
LF/Dex: 13.3 (8.1)
LF/CL: 16.3 (8.0)
MGSS
LF/Dex: 29.8*† (9.9)
LF/CL: 27.3 (11.4)*
NR
NR
TBUT
LF/Dex:3.2 (2.2)
LF/CL: 4.1 (3.4)
TBUT
LF/Dex: 6.1 (4.8)*†
LF/CL: 4.7 (3.4)
Corneal + Conjunct
LF/Dex: 6.6 (6.3)
LF/CL: 5.2 (4.7)
Corneal + Conjunct
LF/Dex: 5.7 (5.9)
LF/CL: 6.2 (6.5)
Dex provides additional therapeutic benefit when combined with LF for improving signs of DED
AEs
None, IOP and VA remained stable in both groups
Laufenböck 2022 [37]
Prospective, non-masked, single-center
Austria
N = 30 patients with DED and MGD, LF: 15 patients (30 eyes), 63 (7) years
CL: 15 patients (30,eyes) 61 (6) years
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx plus hyaluronic acid eye drops 3x/day
CL: Daily massage plus hyaluronic acid eye drops 3x/day
MGYLS (yes/no scale)1
LF:1.8
CL: 1.9
MGYLS (yes/no scale)1
LF:1.4†
CL: 1.75
OSDI
LF: 22.2
CL: 22.7
OSDI
LF: 14.2†
CL: 18.5
NIKBUT
LF: 6.8
CL: 6.7
NIKBUT
LF: 11.2†
CL: 8.3
NR
NR
Both Tx improved measures of MGD but more strongly in the LF group.
AEs NR.
Safety parameters (IOP and VA) were normal in all patients
Zhao 2016 [38]
Prospective, examiner-masked, contralateral eye (worst eye treated)
China
N = 29 Chinese patients with MGD (58 eyes), 57 (7) years;
LF: 29 patients (29 eyes);
CL: 29 patients (29 eyes)
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: untreated
MGYLS
LF: 1.78 (1.8)
CL: 2.34 (1.9)
MGYLS
LF: 4.75 (3.1)*†
CL: xx2
SPEED
LF: 11.2 (4.9)
CL: xx2
SPEED
LF: 4.6 (3.4)*
CL: xx2
TBUT
LF: 2.5 (0.8)
CL: 2.8 (1.0)
TBUT
LF: 3.5 (1.4)*†
CL: xx1
Corneal
LF: 2.3 (1.8)
CL: 1.6 (0.7)
Corneal
LF: 1.3 (1.5)*
CL: xx2
LF significantly improved objective measures of MGD compared with the contralateral eye.
Safety NR
Units of measure are as follows: MGSS = points, score 0–45; MGYLS = number of functional glands; NIKBUT = seconds; OSDI = points, score 0–100; SPEED = points, score 0–28; staining = scale score; TBUT = seconds
AEs adverse events, CL control, conjunct conjunctival, DED dry eye disease, dex dexamethasone, IOP intraocular pressure, FU follow-up, LF LipiFlow, MG meibomian glands, MGD meibomian gland dysfunction, MGSS meibomian gland secretion score (secretion quality, max 45 points), MGYLS meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (glands with secretion capacity), min minutes, NIKBUT noninvasive keratograph break-up time, NR not reported, OSDI ocular surface disease index, pre pretreatment, post post-treatment, SD standard deviation, SPEED standard patient evaluation of eye dryness, TBUT tear break-up time, Tx treatment, VA visual acuity
1The only details on this scale provided are “the expression functionality of the meibomian glands using Meibomian Gland Evaluator: Yes/no test, whether meibum can be expressed with the defined pressure on the eyelid”
2Data only presented in a figure. We did not extrapolate the data from the figure to avoid presenting estimated data
*P < 0.05 vs. baseline
P < 0.05 vs. control

Open-Label Studies

A total of 17 open-label studies were identified that evaluated the effectiveness of LipiFlow for treating MGD, and 16 studies included outcomes of interest (Table 4). Fourteen of the 16 open-label studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single 12-min LipiFlow treatment in 441 patients (814 eyes) with MGD [11, 13, 19, 3949]. In addition, a single 12-min LipiFlow treatment was evaluated when combined with daily manual eyelid massage and eyelid hygiene (one study treating 24 patients, 24 eyes) [50] or warm compress, massage, and eyelid hygiene (one study treating 32 patients, 64 eyes) [51]. One study treated 14 patients (28 eyes) with LipiFlow bilaterally and as a control the contralateral eye had additional heat and MGX to confirm that all material was removed from the glands [49]. Together, the 16 open-label studies evaluated 497 patients (916 eyes) treated with LipiFlow.
Table 4
Summary of open-label studies evaluating LipiFlow to treat MGD
Author/design/country
Patients (eyes)/age, mean (SD)
Last FU
Study arms
MG function
Mean (SD)
Patient-reported outcomes
Mean (SD)
NIKBUT/TBUT
Mean (SD)
Staining
Overall conclusion and safety
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Liu 2023 [39]
Prospective interventional
China
N = 50 patients with MGD,
LF: N = 25 patients (50 eyes), 36 (10) years;
CL: N = 25 patients (50 eyes), 35 (6) years
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: warm eyelid with spontaneous steam eyelid masks for 20 min and massage for 15 min, 1x/day for 3 months
NR
MGE change from BL
LF: − 0.46 (0.58)*
CL: − 0.40 (0.49)
MGSS
change from BL
LF: − 5.44 (3.23)*
CL: − 3.28 (3.37)
NR
OSDI change from BL
LF: − 17.4 (20.3)†*
CL: -8.8 (13.5)
NR
NIKBUT change from BL
LF:1.46 (2.18)*
CL: 1.07 (2.33)
TBUT change from BL
LF:1.91 (0.87)
CL: 1.49 (1.71)
NR
Corneal change from BL
LF: − 0.52 (0.84)†*
CL: − 0.18 (0.66)
LF improved MGD and was well tolerated
AEs
LF: N = 1 patient (slight irritation)
CL: N = 10 patients (mild to severe pain/ discomfort). LF was significantly more comfortable than CL. No loss of VA or IOP > 21 mmHg
Novo-Diez 2022 [40]
Prospective, single-center, open-label
Spain
N = 21 patients with MGD exposed to adverse environmental humidity (42 eyes), 60 (9) years
12 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
MGYLS
LF: 10.3 (1.5)
MGYLS
LF: 12.2 (2.2)*
OSDI
LF: 43.0 (23.9)
OSDI
LF: 29.0 (22.2)*
TBUT
LF: 4.2 (4.1)
TBUT
LF: 4.3 (5.2)
Conjunct
LF: 2 (2)
Conjunct
LF: 0 (0)*
LF improves objective and subjective measures of MGD and the effects are sustained for ≥ 1 year
AEs
None. No significant changes in VA
Hu 2022 [19]
Prospective, open-label, multicenter
USA
N = 44 patients with MGD (88 eyes), 67 (8) years
Post-LF
Single 12-min LF Tx
Corneal
LF: 3.1 (1.9)
Conjunct
LF: 3.4 (2.3)
Corneal
LF: 3.9 (2.3)*
Conjunct
LF: 4.3 (2.9)*
Note: the differences were considered statistically but not clinically significant
The LF Activator Clear enables efficient and confident positioning around the eyelids to ensure successful LF Tx when used as indicated
AEs
None. No safety-related concerns
Fallah 2021 [41]
Prospective, open-label
USA
N = 96 patients with MGD (192 eyes), age NR
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
NR
NR
OSDI
LF: 35.7
OSDI
LF: 30.1*
NR
NR
NR
NR
Significant improvement in subjective symptoms, but smaller than
reported in previous studies
AEs
None
Chan 2021 [42]
Prospective, observational
Hong Kong
N = 16 patients with MGD (30 eyes), mean age NR
1 month
Single 12-min LF Tx
NR
NR
SPEED II
LF: 12.9 (1.3)
SPEED II
LF: 8.7 (0.7)*
NR
NR
NR
NR
LF Tx was effective in improving both objective and subjective measures of MGD.
Safety NR
Li 2020 [43]
Prospective, interventional
China
N = 50 patients (50 eyes);
N = 25 patients with OMGD (25 eyes), 37 (12) years; N = 25 patients with HMGD (25 eyes), 33 (10) years
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
MGSS
LF/OMGD: xx1
MGE
LF/OMGD: xx1
MGSS
LF/OMGD: xx1*
MGE
LF/OMGD: xx1*
SPEED
LF/OMDG: 12.0 (2.5)
LF/HMGD: 12.1 (2.5)
OSDI
LF/OMDG: 22.9 (4.4)
LF/HMGD: 24.1 (4.8)
SPEED
LF/OMDG: 1.5 (1.3)*†
LF/HMGD: 5.2 (2.0)*
OSDI
LF/OMDG: 1.7 (0.8)*†
LF/HMGD: 12.9 (4.1)*
NIKBUT
LF/OMDG: 3.2 (1.5)
LF/HMGD: 3.2 (1.4)
NIKBUT
LF/OMDG: 4.4 (1.4)*†
LF/HMGD: 3.0 (1.1)
NR
NR
LF Tx was effective for OMGD and HMGD. It is more effective for OMGD.
Safety NR
Godin 2018 [44]
Prospective
USA
N = 13 patients with Sjögren's disease (24 eyes), 62 years
1 year
Single 12-min LF Tx
NR
NR
OSDI
LF: 40.4
OSDI
LF: 47.6
TBUT
LF: 3.8
TBUT
LF: 7.5*
Corneal
LF: 1.0
Conjunct
LF: 1.5
Corneal
LF: 0.48*
Conjunct
LF: 0.48*
LF Tx improved signs of DED and MGD in
patients with symptomatic Sjögren's disease
on maximum therapy.
Safety NR
Zhao 2016 [50]
Single-center, controlled, open-label
Singapore
N = 46 patients with MG dropout; LF: N = 24 patients (24 eyes), 56 (13) years;
CL: N = 22 patients (22 eyes), 56 (11) years
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx plus daily manual lid massage and lid cleaning for 3 months
CL: warm compress with towel 10 min/day BID plus daily manual lid massage and lid cleaning for 3 months
MGYLS
LF: xx1
MGYLS
LF: xx1*
SANDE
LF: 45.6 (25.2)
CL:52.4 (20.4)
SANDE % change from BL
LF: − 30.5 (P < 0.05 vs. BL at 1 month but not 3 months)
CL: − 15.9 (P < 0.05 vs. BL at 1 month but not 3 months)
TBUT
LF: 2.4 (1.1)
CL: 2.4 (1.3)
TBUT % change from BL
LF: 89.2 (P < 0.05 vs. BL at 1 month but not 3 months)
CL:63.0
NR
NR
In Asian patients, LF improved symptoms of MGD, and 1 session of LF was comparable to 3 months of BID lid warming, massage, and hygiene
All LF Tx patients had transient eye redness and mild eyelid puffiness for a few min after Tx. No other AEs
Greiner 2016 [45]
Prospective, observational, single-center
USA
N = 20 patients with DED and MGD (40 eyes), 61 (11) years
3 years
Single 12-min LF Tx
MGSS
LF: 4.5
MGYLS
LF: 13.7% of glands studied
MGSS
LF: 18.4*
MGYLS
LF: 53.7% of glands studied
SPEED
LF: 13.4
OSDI
LF: 26.0
SPEED
LF: 9.5 (1.6)*
OSDI
LF: 22.5 (5.4) (P < 0.05 vs. BL at 1, 9 months, and 1 year but not 3 years)
TBUT
LF: 4.1 (0.4)
TBUT
LF: 4.5 (0.6) (P < 0.05 vs. BL at 1 month and 9 months but not 3 years)
Corneal
LF: 0.4 (0.3)
Conjunct
LF:0.01 (0.03)
Corneal
LF: 0.9 (0.6)
Conjunct
LF:0.8 (0.5)
The study reinforces the potential long-term (3 years) benefits of a single LF Tx.
Safety NR
Blackie 2016 [11]
Prospective, multicenter, open-label
USA
N = 200 patients with MGD and evaporative dry eye (400 eyes); 56 (15) years;
LF: 101 patients (202 eyes);
CL: N = 99 patients (198 eyes);
CO: N = 93 patients (186 eyes) in CL who were CO to LF
12 months (9 months for CO group)
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: warm compress with EyeGiene InstaWarmth
and lid hygiene with OCuSOFT Lid Scrub
Original 10 min/day BID for 3 months
MGSS
LF: 6.2 (3.7)
CL: 6.3 (3.7)
MGSS
LF: 17.3 (9.1)*
CL: 11.0 (at 3 months)
CO: 18.4 (11.1)*
OSDI
LF: 45.6 (21.2)
CL: 51.8 (23.1)
OSDI
LF: 21.6 (21.3)*
CL: 31.3 (at 3 months)
CO: 24.0 (23.2)*
NR
NR
NR
NR
LF Tx has sustained improvement in MG function and symptoms over 12 months
AEs
LF: N = 10 (N = 3 eye/eyelid discomfort/pain most common, others NR);
CL: N = 8 (N = 3 eyelid skin dermatitis most common, others NR). All AEs transient, nonserious, and resolved with no Tx
Satjawatcharaphong 2015 [51]
Open-label
USA
N = 32 patients with DED and MGD (64 eyes), 54 (15) years
Mean 52 days (range: 21–84 days)
Single 12-min LF Tx plus warm
compress, massage, and eyelid hygiene were recommended
BID until FU
MGSS
LF: 17.3 (12.9)
MGSS
LF: 29.0 (12.6)*
SPEED
LF: 15.7 (5.5)
SPEED
LF: 12.9 (5.7)*
NIKBUT
LF: 6.1 (3.2)
NIKBUT
LF: 7.6 (2.6)
Corneal
LF: 1.8 (3.8)
Conjunct
LF: 1.4 (2.1)
Corneal
LF: 2.8 (6.6)
Conjunct
LF: 2.8 (6.6)
Results identified factors that better select candidates for LF Tx (At BL: men, higher inferior conjunctival staining, greater number of unexpressible glands)
AEs
NR
Bulbar redness after at-home therapy (N = NR)
Greiner 2013 [46]
Prospective, single-center, observational, open-label
USA
N = 18 patients with MGD and evaporative DED (36 eyes), 63 (12) years
Note: This is a subgroup, long-term FU from Lane 2012 [14]
12 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
MGSS
LF: 4.0 (3.4)
MGSS
LF: 7.3 (4.6)*
SPEED
12.9 (3.8)
OSDI
LF: 22.2 (14.2)
SPEED
6.3 (5.5)*
OSDI
LF: 12.4 (14.6)*
TBUT
LF: 4.9 (3.0)
TBUT
LF: 6.0 (4.4)
NR
NR
LF Tx-induced improvement is sustained for up to 1 year.
Safety NR
Korb 2013 [47]
Case report
USA
N = 1 patient (2 eyes) with NOMGD with significant MG dropout and truncation
7 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
MGYLS
LF OD: 1
LF OS: 1
MGYLS
LF OD: 4
LF OS: 4
SPEED
LF OD: 24.0
LF OS: 28.0
SPEED
LF OD: 6.0
LF OS: 6.0
TBUT
LF OD: 4
LF OS: 4
TBUT
LF OD: 7
LF OS: 9
NR
NR
LF Tx was effective in a patient with significant gland dropout and truncation, and glands were restored to functional health for ≥ 7 months
AEs
None, no discomfort
Greiner 2012 [48]
Prospective, open-label
USA
N = 21 patients with MGD and dry eye (42 eyes), 62 years
9 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
MGSS
LF: 4.4 (4.0)
MGSS
LF: 11.7 (5.9)*
SPEED
LF: 12.9 (4.0)
OSDI
LF: 23.4 (14.4)
SPEED
LF: 6.2 (4.0)*
OSDI
LF: 12.4 (15.3)*
TBUT
LF: 9.6 (7.6)
TBUT
LF: 7.1 (5.6)*
NR
NR
LF Tx improved signs and symptoms of DED and was maintained for 9 months.
Safety NR
Friedland 2011       [49]
Multicenter, open-label feasibility
USA
N = 14 patients with moderate-to-severe dry eye and MGD, 54 (10) years;
LF: N = 14 eyes;
CL: N = 14 eyes
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: Single 12-min LF Tx plus heat and pressure with a handheld device (type NR) with MGX to assess whether all material was removed
MGSS
LF: 3.4 (3.2)
CL: 2.5 (2.3)
MGYLS
LF: 2.9 (2.8)
CL: 2.1 (2.4)
MGSS
LF: 9.9 (3.2)*
CL: 9.2 (4.3)*
MGYLS
LF: 9.9 (3.1)*
CL: 10.5 (4.9)*
SPEED
LF: 16.2 (5.4)
CL: 16.2 (5.4)
OSDI
LF: 37.0 (23.8)
CL: 37.9 (21.4)
SPEED
LF: 7.8 (4.8)*
CL: 7.8 (4.8)*
OSDI
LF: 18.3 (14.0)*
CL: 24.5 (26.5)*
TBUT
LF: 5.2 (2.6)
CL: 5.8 (3.4)
TBUT
LF: 11.0 (6.3)*
CL:11.8 (5.9)*
Corneal
LF: 0.6 (0.8)
CL:0.6 (0.7)
Corneal
LF: 0.1 (0.3)*
CL: 0.1 (0.3)*
LF Tx was highly effective at improving signs and symptoms of MGD and DED for 3 months
AEs
N = 3 (discomfort, chalazion unrelated to Tx, internal hordeola unrelated to Tx)
Korb 2010 [13]
Case report
USA
N = 1 patient with NOMGD (2 eyes)
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
MGYLS
LF OD: 0
LF OS: 1
MGYLS
LF OD: 6
LF OS: 6
SPEED
LF OD: 20.0
LF OS: 19.0
OSDI
LF OD: 70.8
LF OS: 66.7
SPEED
LF OD: 3.0
LF OS: 4.0
OSDI
LF OD: 18.8
LF OS: 14.6
TBUT
LF OD: 5.2
LF OS: 4.5
TBUT
LF OD: 10.7
LF OS: 13.8
NR
NR
LF Tx was effective at treating NOMGD for at least 3 months
AEs
None, no significant discomfort
Note: this is the first published report of the use of LF
Units of measure are as follows: MGSS = points, score 0–45; MGYLS = number of functional glands; NIKBUT = seconds; OSDI = points, score 0–100; SANDE = visual analog scale score, 0–100; SPEED = points, score 0–28; staining = scale score; TBUT = seconds
Notes: Treatment manufacturers are as follows: EyeGiene® InstaWarmth™ patch (Eyedetec Medical Inc, Danville, CA); OCuSOFT® Lid Scrub™ Original (OCuSOFT, Rosenberg, TX)
AEs adverse events, BID 2 times per day, BL baseline, conjunct conjunctival, CL control, CO crossover group, DED dry eye disease, FU follow-up, HMGD hyposecretory meibomian gland disease, IOP intraocular pressure, LF LipiFlow, MGD meibomian gland disease, MGE meibomian gland expressibility score, MGSS meibomian gland secretion score (secretion quality, max 45 points), MGX manual gland expression, MGYLS meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (glands with secretion capacity), min minutes, NIKBUT noninvasive keratograph break-up time, NOMGD nonobvious obstructive meibomian gland disease, NR not reported, OD right eye, OS left eye, OMGD obstructive meibomian gland disease, OSDI ocular surface disease index, pre pretreatment, post post-treatment, SANDE Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye, SD standard deviation, SPEED standard patient evaluation of eye dryness, TBUT tear break-up time, Tx treatment, VA visual acuity
1Data only presented in a figure. We did not extrapolate the data from the figure to avoid presenting estimated data
*P < 0.05 vs. baseline
P < 0.05 vs. comparator
Eleven of the open-label studies that evaluated a single 12-min LipiFlow treatment had no control group [13, 19, 4048]. The 11 studies concluded that LipiFlow was effective at improving the signs and symptoms of MGD 1 month to 3 years post-treatment. One of the studies focused on evaluating the updated LipiFlow Activator Clear and concluded that it enables efficient and confident positioning around the eyelids to ensure successful LipiFlow treatment when used as indicated [19]. One study compared the effectiveness of LipiFlow in patients with hyposecretory MGD (HMGD) or obstructive MGD (OMGD) and concluded that although LipiFlow was effective in both groups, it was more effective in treating OMGD [43]. Two case reports demonstrated the benefits of LipiFlow in patients with nonobvious OMGD [13, 47]. LipiFlow was also shown to be effective in patients with symptomatic Sjögren’s syndrome on maximum therapy [44].
Four of the 16 open-label studies compared LipiFlow to a control treatment (warm compress, eyelid hygiene, massage, and/or eyelid pressure) and concluded that effectiveness of LipiFlow was similar or better than the at-home therapies [11, 39, 49, 50]. In particular, Zhao et al. concluded that one session of LipiFlow was comparable to 3 months of eyelid warming, massage, and hygiene BID [50].
The objective of one open-label study was to identify patient characteristics that would help navigate when to recommend LipiFlow treatment (i.e. who would have the most robust outcomes) [51]. The study concluded that men, patients with greater inferior conjunctival staining at baseline, and patients with a greater number of unexpressible lower eyelid MGs at baseline receive the most benefit from LipiFlow treatment. A limitation of this study is that only 32 patients were included.
Five open-label studies evaluated the duration of effect 1–3 years post-treatment [11, 40, 4446], and the benefits were shown to last up to 3 years [45].

Retrospective Studies

Eight retrospective studies were identified that evaluated the effectiveness of LipiFlow for treating MGD, and included 367 LipiFlow-treated patients (646 eyes) (Table 5). Four of the eight retrospective studies evaluated the effectiveness of a single 12-min LipiFlow treatment in 235 patients (435 eyes) with MGD and concluded that LipiFlow improved signs and symptoms of MDG/DED 2–12 months post-treatment [5255]. Four of the eight retrospective studies evaluated LipiFlow treatment combined with at-home therapies in 132 patients (211 eyes), and all concluded that LipiFlow was effective 1–12 months post-treatment [5659]. Epitropoulos et al. compared the effect of LipiFlow in patients with and without Sjögren’s syndrome and concluded that while the treatment was effective for both groups, it was more effective in patients without Sjögren’s syndrome [54]. Hura et al. reported that LipiFlow treatment may restore acini activity [52]. Arita et al. compared LipiFlow with other treatments and recommended LipiFlow for mild to moderate MG loss and IPL for severe MG loss [58]. Gibbons et al. concluded that patients with signs of lower tear production, higher corneal and conjunctival staining scores, and higher osmolarity tend to respond better to LipiFlow [59].
Table 5
Summary of retrospective studies evaluating LipiFlow to treat MGD
Author/design/country
Patients (eyes)/age, mean (SD)
Last FU
Study arms
MG function, mean (SD)
Patient-reported outcomes
Mean (SD)
NITBUT/TBUT, mean (SD)
Staining
Overall conclusion and safety
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Chung 2022   [56]
Retrospective
South Korea
N = 23 patients with refractory MGD (23 eyes), 42 (13) years
12 months
12-min LF Tx plus IPL plus MGX all 3 times (once every 3 weeks); followed by IPL plus MGX monthly through 18 weeks; followed by MGX, monthly through 12 months
MGE Grade Score
BL: 2.6 (0.6)
Note: graded 0–3
MGE Grade Score
1.2 (0.6)*
OSDI
BL: 49.0 (14.9)
OSDI
15.5 (8.7)*
NIBUT
BL: 3.2 (1.2)
NIBUT
8.0 (1.9)*
NR
NR
LF combination Tx was effective and safe for
treating refractory MGD with prolonged effects maintained with monthly MGX
AEs
N = 3 (gritty sensation with mild discharge for 1 day). No sign changes in VA
Kim 2020       [57]
Retrospective
South Korea
N = 30 patients with obstructive MGD (60 eyes);
LF: 15 patients (30 eyes); 40 (7) years
CL: 15 patients (30 eyes), 39 (11) years
6 months
12-min LF Tx 3 times (1x/month for 3 months)
CL: Single 12-min LF Tx followed by MGX 3 times (1x/month for 3 months)
All eyes had artificial tears containing 0.1% hyaluronic acid (Haylene) 3 × or 4x/day for 6 months
NR
NR
OSDI
LF: 43.6 (10.4)
CL: 51.3 (15.5)
OSDI
LF: 33.3 (13.2)*
CL: 13.1 (6.9)*†
NIBUT
LF: NR1
CL: 3.2 (1.2)
NIBUT
LF: NR1
CL: 8.5 (1.5)*†
NR
NR
Both LF only and MGX after LF were
clinically effective for obstructive MGD. Efficacy and persistence were greater in the MGX plus LF group
AEs
None
Hura 2020      [52]
Retrospective, single masked
USA
N = 43 patients with DED and MGD (70 eyes);
LF: N = 30 patients (48 eyes), age NR; CL: N = 13 patients (22 eyes), age NR
12 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: untreated but LF recommended
MGSS
LF: 5
CL: 7
MGSS
LF: 12*†
CL: 6
SPEED
LF: 15
CL:12
SPEED
LF: 10
CL: 9
TBUT
LF: 3
CL: 4
TBUT
LF: 7*†
CL: 3
Corneal
LF: 0.44
CL: 0.39
Note: score 1 = presence and 0 = absence
Corneal
LF: 0
31*†
CL: 0.67
Compared with CL, MG structure may increase post-LF Tx suggesting restored acini activity.
Safety NR
Arita 2021     [58]
Retrospective, randomized
Japan
N = 165 patients with MGD (165 eyes);
LF: 30 patients/eyes, 63 (14) years;
CL 1: 30 patients/eyes, 59 (19) years;
CL 2: 30 patients/eyes, 59 (15) years;
CL 3: 38 patients/eyes, 60 (16) years;
CL 4: 37 patients/eyes, 61 (18) years
1 month
Single 12-min LF Tx plus warm compress and lid hygiene BID for 1 month
CL1: warm compress and lid hygiene BID for 3 months
CL 2: Artia MG compressor every 3 weeks for 4 times plus warm compress and lid hygiene BID for 3 months
CL 3:Azithromycin eyedrops plus warm compress and lid hygiene BID for 2 weeks
CL 4: IPL (M22) every 3 weeks for 4 sessions plus warm compress and lid hygiene BID for 3 months
MGE Grade Score
LF: 2.3 (0.4)
CL 1: 2.3 (0.5)
CL 2: 2.4 (0.5)
CL 3: 2.3 (0.4)
CL 4: 2.6 (0.5)
Note: graded 0–3
MGE Grade Score
LF: 1.7 (1.0)*
CL 1: 1.8 (0.9)*
CL 2: 1.6 (0.9)*
CL 3: 1.2 (0.8)*
CL 4: 0.1 (0.4)*
SPEED
LF:11.3 (3)
CL 1: 12.2 (3.9)
CL 2: 12.5 (4.2)
CL 3: 12.6 (4)
CL 4: 13.4 (3.2)
SPEED
LF: 8.7 (4.2)*
CL 1: 9.0 (3.6)*
CL 2: 8.9 (4.9)*
CL 3: 6.2 (4.5)*
CL 4: 3.7 (2.8)*
TBUT
LF: 3.3 (0.7)
CL 1: 3.1 (1.2)
CL 2: 3.0 (1.1)
CL 3: 3.2 (1.0)
CL 4: 3.1 (1.2)
TBUT
LF: 3.1 (1.7)*
CL 1: 3.4 (1.3)*
CL 2: 3.9 (0.6)*
CL 3: 5.8 (2.8)
CL 4: 6.7 (2.4)*
Corneal + Conjunct
LF: 0.9 (0.6)
CL 1: 0.8 (0.6)
CL 2: 0.8 (0.8)
CL 3: 1.0 (1.2)
CL 4: 1.0 (1.1)
Note: Score 0–9
Cornea + Conjunct
LF: 0.8 (0.6)*
CL 1: 0.6 (0.6)*
CL 2: 0.5 (0.7)*
CL 3: 0.4 (1.0)*
CL 4: 0.1 (0.3)*
When MG loss is early and mild or moderate, several Tx options are available. When MG loss is severe, IPL is recommended.
Safety NR
Kim 2017       [53]
Retrospective chart review
USA
N = 98 patients with MGD and DED (189 eyes), 60 years
Mean 77 days
Single 12-min LF Tx
NR
NR
OSDI
LF: 50.5 (25.1)
OSDI
LF: 41.4 (26.4)*
TBUT
LF: 4.5 (1.4)
TBUT
LF: 8.5 (1.7)*
NR
NR
LF Tx improves subjective and objective measures of DED.
Safety NR
Gibbons 2017 [59]
Retrospective interventional case series
USA
N = 49 patients with symptomatic MGD (98 eyes);
N = 32 patients who responded to Tx, 63 (15) years;
N = 17 patients with no response to Tx, 62 (16) years
3–4 months
Single 12-min LF Tx followed by 10 min heat (gel mask), lid hygiene, and MGX every 4–6 weeks for 3 times
MGE Grade Score
LF responded to Tx: 5.9 (1.9)
LF no response to Tx: 5.6 (1.9)
Note: grading not defined
MGE Grade Score
NR
OSDI
LF responded to Tx: 54.0 (24.3)
LF no response to Tx: 57.6 (19.9)
OSDI
NR
TBUT
LF responded to Tx: 4.1 (3.0)
LF no response to Tx: 4.6 (3.5)
TBUT
NR
Corneal
LF responded to Tx: 4.4 (5.0)
LF no response to Tx: 0.4 (1.1)
Conjunct
LF responded to Tx: 3.1 (2.4)
LF no response to Tx: 1.5 (1.8)
Corneal
NR†
Conjunct
NR†
Patients with signs of lower tear production, higher corneal and conjunct staining scores, and higher osmolarity tend to respond better to LF
AEs
None
Epitropoulos 2017 [54]
Retrospective
USA
N = 59 patients with MGD (102 eyes), 62 (14) years;
LF SS+:    N = 23 patients (43 eyes);
LF SS-: N = 36 patients (59 eyes)
2 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
MGSS
LF SS +: 2.1
LF SS-: 2.4
MGSS
LF SS+: 13.0*
LF SS-: 15.9*†
SPEED
LF SS+: 17.9
LF SS-: 15.9
SPEED
LF SS+: 12.5*
LF SS-: 10.1*
TBUT
LF SS+: 3.7
LF SS-: 3.8
TBUT
LF SS+: 9.6*
LF SS-: 8.3*
NR
NR
LF Tx in patients SS+ and with MGD had significant
improvement in signs and symptoms of dry eye. Improvement in MGS scores were > in SS- patients.
Safety NR
Liang 2015    [55]
Retrospective case series
China
N = 48 patients with MGD (96 eyes)
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
MGSS
LF: 6.2 (2.5)
MGYLS
LF: 2.9 (1.1)
MGSS
LF: 12.7 (3.4)*
MGYLS
LF: 5.2 (2.1)*
OSDI
LF: 45.4 (19.3)
OSDI
LF: 25.7 (14.1)*
TBUT
LF: 4.7 (2.3)
TBUT
LF: 9.9 (3.0)*
Corneal + Conjunct
LF: 2.4 (2.2)
Corneal + Conjunct
LF: 2.1 (1.1)
LF is an effective and safe Tx for MGD
AEs None
No discomfort /pain, tearing, or irritation 1 day post Tx. No sign changes in VA or IOP
Units of measure are as follows: MGSS = points, score 0–45; NIKBUT = seconds; OSDI = points, score 0–100; SPEED = points, score 0–28; staining = scale score; TBUT = seconds
Treatment manufacturers are as follows: Artia MG compressor (Katena Products/Corza Medical, Parsippany, NJ); Azithromycin eyedrops (Azimychin, Senju Pharmaceutical Co, Kobe, Japan); Haylene Eye Drop (Binex Pharmaceutical Corp, Incheon, Korea); M22 (Lumenis, Yokneam, Israel)
AEs adverse events, BID 2 times per day, BL baseline, CL control, conjunct conjunctival, FU follow-up, IPL intense pulsed light, LF LipiFlow, MG meibomian glands, MGD meibomian gland dysfunction, MGE meibomian gland expression, MGSS meibomian gland secretion score (secretion quality), MGX practitioner-administered manual meibomian gland expression, MGYLS meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (glands with secretion capacity), min minutes, NIKBUT noninvasive keratograph break-up time, NR not reported, OSDI ocular surface disease index, SD standard deviation, sign significant, SPEED standard patient evaluation of eye dryness, SS ±  Sjögren’s syndrome positive or negative, TBUT tear break-up time, Tx treatment, VA visual acuity
1Data only presented in a figure. We did not extrapolate the data from the figure to avoid presenting estimated data
*P < 0.05 vs. baseline
P < 0.05 vs. comparator

Safety in MGD Populations

A total of ten RCTs evaluated the safety of LipiFlow when treating MGD, and the data are presented in Table 2. Of these, seven RCTs (359 LipiFlow-treated patients, 637 eyes) reported that there were no LipiFlow-related AEs or other safety concerns [23, 25, 2830, 33, 34], and three RCTs (237 LipiFlow-treated patients, 438 eyes) reported LipiFlow-related safety events [14, 26, 27]. Namely, of 209 patients (410 eyes) treated with LipiFlow there were eight device-related AEs (eyelid pain [N = 3], conjunctival vascular injection [N = 1], blepharitis [N = 1], foreign body sensation [N = 2], and severe eye dryness [N = 1]) [14, 26]. Booranapong et al. reported that LipiFlow-related AEs of eye discomfort/pain only occurred among patients with small eyes, narrow palpebral fissure, or deep-set eyes (study evaluated 28 patients/eyes, and the number with AEs was not reported) [27]. Taken together, the RCT studies yield an AE rate of 0.76% (8 AEs in 1047 eyes, excluding Booranapong because the number of AEs was not reported). Slit-lamp findings not considered AEs were most frequently trace to mild conjunctival injection, edema, hyperemia, or redness; eyelid edema; petechial hemorrhages on the eyelid or conjunctiva; and superficial punctate keratitis (SPK) immediately or 1-day post-treatment [14, 34]. All slit-lamp findings resolved rapidly and without treatment. There were no reports of significant safety-related changes in IOP or VA. Lane et al. and Blackie et al. concluded that the safety profile of LipiFlow treatment reflects a low occurrence of non-serious, transient side effects that resolve quickly and do not require medical treatment [14, 34]. It should be noted that the control groups also had adverse safety events [14, 26, 28, 30].
Safety was reported in two prospective, controlled (non-randomized) studies (Table 3). One study with 20 LipiFlow-treated patients (19 eyes) reported that there were no AEs, the other study did not report AEs, and both studies reported no significant safety-related changes in IOP or VA (49 patients, 48 eyes) [36, 37].
Nine open-label studies, which included 420 LipiFlow-treated patients (816 eyes), evaluated the safety of LipiFlow when treating MGD, and the data are presented in Table 4. Of these, five open-label studies (163 LipiFlow-treated patients, 326 eyes) reported that there were no LipiFlow-related AEs or other safety concerns [13, 19, 40, 41, 47], and four open-label studies (257 LipiFlow-treated patients, 490 eyes) reported LipiFlow-related safety events [11, 39, 49, 50]. Namely, of 420 patients (816 eyes) treated with LipiFlow, there were 60 device-related AEs (irritation [N = 1], redness [N = 24], eyelid puffiness [N = 24], discomfort/pain [N = 4], and “other” [N = 7]) [11, 39, 49, 50]. Taken together, the open-label studies yield an AE rate of 7.35% (60 AEs in 816 eyes). Zhao et al. reported that all LipiFlow-treated patients (N = 24, 24 eyes) had eye redness and mild eyelid puffiness after treatment, which resolved after a few minutes (no additional information was reported) [50]. Blackie et al. also reported that all AEs were nonserious, transient, and resolved without treatment [11]. There were no reports of significant safety-related changes in IOP or VA. It is noteworthy that the control groups in the open-label studies also had adverse safety events [11, 39, 51]. Liu et al. reported that ten of 25 patients treated with a warm mask and massage had AEs of mild to severe pain/discomfort; while none of the LipiFlow-treated patients reported pain/discomfort. The authors concluded that LipiFlow was significantly more comfortable than the at-home treatment [39].
Four retrospective studies reported on the safety of LipiFlow treatment in 150 patients (277 eyes), and the data are presented in Table 5. Three of the four retrospective studies, which included 127 LipiFlow-treated patients (254 eyes), reported that there were no LipiFlow-related AEs or other safety concerns [55, 57, 59]. One study with 23 LipiFlow-treated patients (23 eyes) reported three AEs of gritty sensation with mild discharge[56]. Taken together, the retrospective studies yield an AE rate of 1.08% (three AEs in 277 eyes).

Cataract

Cataract surgery can cause or worsen MGD and is associated with loss of MG and deterioration of gland morphology [6062]. In addition, DED in general can cause imprecision of biometry and keratometry readings resulting in suboptimal refractive results [63]. Accordingly, seven studies evaluated the effect of LipiFlow on 280 patients (271 eyes) undergoing cataract surgery, and the studies are described in Table 6. Three studies evaluated the effect of pre-operative LipiFlow treatment on intraocular lens (IOL) selection. One study of 31 patients (29 eyes) with MGD concluded that LipiFlow improved tear film parameters but had negligible effect on spherical IOL selection [63]. In contrast, two studies of 29 patients with MGD (36 eyes) concluded that LipiFlow treatment stabilized the tear film and improved the accuracy of the IOL power calculations especially the keratometry readings [64, 65]. Three studies evaluated 160 patients (156 eyes) with cataract and MGD, and one study evaluated 60 patients (60 eyes) with cataract and optional MGD; all four studies concluded that preoperative LipiFlow treatment prevented postoperative MGD related DED and improved postoperative ocular surface health [6669]. Matossian et al. reported that LipiFlow treatment either before or after cataract surgery with implantation of an extended depth of focus IOL had beneficial effects on postoperative VA, halos, and signs and symptoms of MGD [67].
Table 6
Summary of studies evaluating LipiFlow in patients undergoing cataract surgery or with treated glaucoma
Author/design/country
Patients (eyes)/age, mean (SD)
Last FU after LF Tx
Study arms
MG function
Mean (SD)
Patient-reported symptoms
Mean (SD)
TBUT
Mean (SD)
Staining
Overall conclusion and safety
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Cataract
Schlatter 2023 [63]
Prospective, randomized,
controlled, investigator-masked
N = 31 patients with MGD and cataract (62 eyes), 44 (16) years;
LF: N = 29 eyes;
CL: N = 29 eyes
3 months preop
Single 12-min LF Tx before cataract surgery
CL: untreated
MGSS
LF: 9.5
(5.2)
CL: 9.9 (4.9)
MGSS
LF: 14.4
(9.1)*
CL: 13.6
(10.5)
NR
NR
TBUT
LF: 5.6
(2.7)
CL: 4.9 (2.1)
TBUT
LF: 8.8
(4.4)*
CL: 7.8
(4.4)*
NR
NR
Tear film parameters improved in LF eyes, but effect on spherical
IOL selection was negligible
AEs
N = 1 (stye unrelated to LF)
Mencucci 2023 [66]
Prospective, unmasked, randomized controlled
Italy
N = 46 patients with cataract and mild/moderate MGD (46 eyes), LF: N = 23 patients (23 eyes), 73 (8) years
CL: N = 23 patients (23 eyes), 75 (8) years
1 month (pre-cataract surgery)
2 months (= 1 month post-cataract surgery)
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: warm compress, massage BID for 1 month
MGYLS
LF: 7.3 (0.8)
CL: 7.7 (0.6)
MGSS
LF: 0.65 (0.77)
CL: 0.33 (0.56)
MGYLS
1 month (preop):
LF: 7.8 (0.51)*
CL: 7.8 (0.4)
2 months (postop):
LF: 7.9 (0.3)*†
CL: 7.5 (0.7)
MGSS
1 month (preop):
LF: 0.21 (0.52)*
CL: 0.21 (0.41)
2 months (postop):
LF: 0.13 (0.34)*†
CL: 0.54 (0.60)
SPEED
LF: 6.1 (2.8)
CL: 5.8 (1.5)
SPEED
1 month (preop):
LF: 3.9 (2.2)*†
CL: 5.1 (1.5)
2 months (postop): LF: 4.0 (1.8)*†
CL: 6.0 (1.2)
NIKBUT
LF: 5.2 (1.3)
CL: 5.7 (1.2)
NIKBUT
1 month (preop):
LF: 6.2 (1.7)*
CL: 6.0 (1.2)
2 months (postop):
LF: 6.3 (1.9)*†
CL: 5.1 (1.5)
Corneal
LF: 0.26 (0.44)
CL: 0.13 (0.33)
Corneal
1 month (preop):
LF: 0.13 (0.33)
CL: 0.13 (0.33)
2 months (postop):
LF: 0.13 (0.34)
CL: 0.13 (0.33)
Preop LF Tx prevented postcataract surgery DED in patients with mild-to-moderate MGD. LF-treated patients had a better ocular surface status than CL
AEs
None
No pain or discomfort
Matossian 2023 [67]
Prospective, randomized,
open-label, crossover, multicenter
USA
N = 121 patients with mild-to-moderate MGD and cataract;
LF: N = 117 eyes, 65 (8) years;
CL: N = 115 eyes, 65 (8) years
3 months (3 months post-cataract surgery)
CO: 1 month (4 months post-cataract surgery)
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: untreated
NR
MGSS:
Change from BL to 3 months (postop):
LF: 7.3 (9.3)†
CL: 4.7 (10.1)
MGYLS Change from BL to 1 month postop:
LF: 1.6 (3.1)
CL: 1.1 (3.3)
CO MGSS:
Change from 3 to 4 months postop:
LF: 4.1 (11.0)†
NR
SPEED:
Change from BL to 3 months:
LF: -2.1 (5.3)
CL:-1.5 (5.6)
CO SPEED:
Change from 3 to 4 months postop:
LF: − 1.2 (5.6)
NR
TBUT
Change from BL to 1 month postop:
LF: 0.69 (4.6)
CL: 0.06 (3.7)
NR
Corneal Change from BL to 1 month postop:
LF: − 0.57 (2.3)†
CL: 0.20 (3.2)
Conjunct
Change from BL to 1 month postop:
LF: − 1.2 (3.8)†
CL: 0.45 (4.0)
Presurgical LF Tx of
patients implanted with range-of-vision IOLs
improved MG function and postop ocular surface health. LF Tx reduced postop
halos and improved VA
AEs
None related to LF, all related to cataract surgery
Park 2021      [69]
Prospective, randomized controlled study
Korea
N = 124 patients with cataract (MGD was not a requirement) (124 eyes);
LF: N = 60 patients (60 eyes), 64 (9) years
CL: N = 48 patients (48 eyes), 65 (12) years
3 months postop
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: untreated
MGSS
LF: 1.0 (0.9)
CL: 0.9 (0.8)
MGYLS
LF: 6.0 (2.1)
CL:6.6 (2.1)
MGSS
LF: 0.9 (0.9)*†
CL: 1.7 (0.8)*
MGYLS
LF: 7.1 (1.7)*†
CL: 5.6 (2.6)*
OSDI
LF: 37.9 (20.2)
CL: 34.3 (20.1)
OSDI
LF: 22.3 (16.5)*†
CL: 29.8 (20.8)
TBUT
LF: 3.5 (1.5)
CL: 3.7 (1.5)
TBUT
LF: 4.4 (1.8)*†
CL: 3.6 (1.6)
Corneal
LF:0.77 (0.90)
CL: 0.68 (0.92)
Corneal
LF: 0.46 (0.56)*
CL: 0.62 (0.56)
LF Tx conducted prior to cataract surgery may be safe and effective for relieving MGD and dry eye induced by surgery
AEs
None. No pain at insertion, treatment, or removal
Zhao Y 2021 [68]
Prospective, examiner-masked controlled, contralateral eye
China
N = 32 patients with MGD and cataract (64 eyes);
N = 16 patients undergoing cataract surgery, LF: N = 16 eyes, CL: N = 16 eyes, 62 (10) years;
N = 16 patients no surgery (control), LF: N = 16 eyes, CL: N = 16 eyes, 62 (2) years
In both groups LF in 1 eye and untreated contralateral eye
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
CL: untreated
MGYLS
LF/surgery: 2.1 (1.8)
CL/surgery: 1.9 (1.8)
LF/non-surgery: 1.8 (1.8)
CL/non-surgery: 2.6 (2.5)
MGYLS median change from BL:
LF/surgery: 4.0*
CL/surgery: − 2.0
LF/non-surgery: 3.0*
CL/non-surgery: 0.0 (P < 0.05 vs. CL/surgery)
SPEED
xx1
SPEED
xx1
TBUT
LF/surgery: 5.0 (2.3)
CL/surgery: 4.9 (2.6)
LF/non-surgery: 2.5 (0.6)
CL/non-surgery: 2.8 (1.1)
TBUT median change from BL:
LF/surgery: − 2.5
CL/surgery: − 2.0
LF/non-surgery: 1.0 (P < 0.05 vs. LF/surgery)
CL/non-surgery: 0.0 (P < 0.05 vs. CL/surgery)
Corneal
LF/surgery: 3.1 (0.4)
CL/surgery: 3.2 (0.5)
LF/non-surgery: 2.0 (0.5)
CL/non-surgery: 1.9 (0.8)
Corneal
xx1
LF Tx before cataract surgery is effective in diminishing the blockage of MG and preventing a decline of TBUT after cataract surgery.
Safety NR
Szabelska 2023 [64]
Open-label case series
Poland
N = 6 patients with MGD and cataract (11 eyes), 67 years
6 weeks
Single 12-min LF Tx 6 weeks pre-cataract surgery
NR
NR
OSDI
LF: 31.1
OSDI
LF: 22.7
TBUT
LF: 9.1
TBUT
LF: 13.9
NR
NR
Stabilization of visual system parameters after LF improved accuracy of IOL power recommendation.
Safety NR
Matossian 2020 [65]
Single-center, pilot, retrospective
USA
N = 23 patients with MGD and cataract (25 eyes), 73 (8) years
6 weeks
Single 12-min LF Tx 6 weeks pre- cataract surgery
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
LF Tx resulted in less residual refractive astigmatism compared with pre-LF keratometry readings, which altered astigmatism management/ IOL selection.
Safety NR
Glaucoma
Kasetsuwan 2020 [70]
Prospective, randomized, observer-blind
Thailand
N = 60 patients with well-controlled glaucoma and MGD; LF: N = 26 patients (26 eyes), 67 (11) years;
CL: N = 22 patients (22 eyes), 70 (8) years
6 months
Single 12-min LF Tx plus lid hygiene
CL: lid hygiene: warm compress, massage, baby shampoo, BID for 6 months
MGSS
LF: 21.5 (5.8)
CL: 22.5 (5.9)
MGSS
change from BL:
LF: 4.7*
CL: 3.0*
OSDI
LF: 23.7 (11.8)
CL: 26.8 (18.2)
OSDI change from BL:
LF: − 7.8*
CL:
-11.8*
TBUT
LF: 5.4 (3.7)
CL: 6.0 (5.4)
TBUT
Change from BL:
LF: − 0.30
CL:-0.58
Corneal
LF: 1.3 (0.8)
CL: 1.0 (0.6)
Corneal
Change from BL:
LF: 0
CL: 0
Adding LF Tx to lid hygiene significantly improved MG function and symptoms at 6 months
AEs
LF: N = 7 patients (N = 1 difficulty inserting the device, N = 5 mild discomfort immediately after Tx, N = 1 mild conjunctival injection
CL: N = NR discomfort during massage.
No IOP elevation or uncontrolled IOP that required additional antiglaucoma Tx
Units of measure are as follows: MGSS = points, score 0–45; MGYLS = number of functional glands; NIKBUT = seconds; OSDI = points, score 0–100; SANDE = visual analog scale score, 0–100; SPEED = points, score 0–28; staining = scale score; TBUT = seconds; VAS = scale score
AEs adverse events, BID 2 times per day, BL baseline, CL control, CO crossover group, conjunct conjunctival, D diopters, DED dry eye disease, FU follow-up, IOL intraocular lens, LF LipiFlow, MG meibomian glands, MGSS number of expressible meibomian glands, MGYLS meibomian glands secretion score, min minutes, NIKBUT noninvasive keratograph break-up time, NR not reported, OSDI ocular surface disease index, pre pretreatment, post post-treatment, SD standard deviation, SPEED standard patient evaluation of eye dryness, TBUT tear break-up time, Tx treatment, VA visual acuity
*P ≤ 0.05 vs. baseline
P ≤ 0.05 vs. control
1Data only presented in a figure. We did not extrapolate the data from the figure to avoid presenting estimated data

Safety in Cataract Studies

Four studies evaluated the safety of LipiFlow when treating MGD in patients with cataract (235 patients, 229 eyes), and the data are presented in Table 6. There were no AEs, pain, or safety concerns related to LipiFlow treatment [63, 66, 67, 69].

Glaucoma

Many patients being treated for glaucoma have MGD, which may be attributed to polypharmacy management [70]. Only one glaucoma study was identified, and it evaluated the effect of LipiFlow on patients with well-controlled glaucoma and MGD (Table 6). The study compared LipiFlow plus eyelid hygiene (26 patients, 26 eyes) to warm compress, massage, and eyelid hygiene (22 patients, 22 eyes) [70]. Both groups similarly improved MG function and symptoms at 6 months. According to the authors, this is the first study to evaluate LipiFlow in patients using long-term anti-glaucoma medications. LipiFlow was safe to use in this population; treatment did not elevate IOP or cause the need for additional antiglaucoma treatment. There were seven AEs (difficulty inserting the device [N = 1], mild discomfort immediately after treatment [N = 5], and mild conjunctival injection [N = 1].

Refractive Surgery

Refractive surgery can cause DED; therefore, it is important to identify MGD as part of the preoperative work-up [71]. Three studies and one case report evaluated the effect of LipiFlow on 91 patients (177 eyes) pre- or post-refractive surgery (Table 7). One study in 32 patients (64 eyes) treated with LipiFlow preoperatively concluded that LipiFlow prior to refractive surgery can help lessen the symptoms of dry eyes after refractive surgery and may reduce the patient’s dependence on ocular surface lubrication after refractive surgery [71]. Two studies evaluated the effect of postoperative LipiFlow in 58 patients (111 eyes) post-LASIK or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and concluded that LipiFlow improved signs and symptoms of MGD 3 months post-treatment [72, 73]. A case report demonstrated that LipiFlow was an effective therapy 4 years post-LASIK in a patient with MGD and severe LASIK-induced dry eye [73]. Safety was not evaluated in any of the studies.
Table 7
Summary of studies evaluating LipiFlow in patients undergoing refractive surgery
Author/design/country
Patients (eyes)/mean age (SD)
Last FU
Study arms
MG function
Mean (SD)
Patient-reported outcomes
Mean (SD)
NITBUT/TBUT
Mean (SD)
Staining
Overall conclusion and safety
 
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Shetty 2023    [71]
Prospective interventional
India
N = 59 patients with mild-to-moderate evaporative
DED and/or MGD undergoing refractive surgery,
LF pre-LASIK: N = 32 patients (64 eyes), 28 (5) years;
LF post-LASIK: N = 27 patients (52 eyes), 27 (5) years
3 months
Single 12-min LF Tx pre-LASIK
CL: Single 12-min LF Tx 3 months post-LASIK
NR
NR
OSDI
LF pre-LASIK group preop: 18.0 (2.2)
LF post-LASIK group preop: 4.5 (0.9)
OSDI
LF pre-LASIK group postop: 9.5 (1.6)*
LF post-LASIK group pre-LF postop: 35.2 (2.3)*
LF post-LASIK group post-LF & postop: 17.4 (2.6)*†
TBUT
LF pre-LASIK group preop: 6.9 (0.2)
LF post-LASIK group preop: 8.0 (0.1)
TBUT
LF pre-LASIK group postop: 8.3 (0.2)*
LF post-LASIK group pre-LF postop: 7.0 (1.5)*
LF post-LASIK group post-LF & postop: 9.4 (0.2)*†
NR
NR
LF Tx prior to refractive surgery can help lessen the clinical effects of dry eyes after refractive surgery.
Safety NR
Schallhorn 2017 [72]
Retrospective
United Kingdom
N = 57 patients with dry eye post-LASIK or PRK (109 eyes), 49 years
Various: FU reported under each outcome
Single 12-min LF Tx
Note: LF Tx mean 40.5 months after LASIK/PRK
MGD Grade Score
NR
Note: graded 0–4
MGD Grade Score
LF: Change from BL:
− 0.69*
Note: BL is pre-LF but post-LASIK/PRK
SPEED II
LF: 17.5
SPEED II
LF: 10.2*
Note: FU mean 25 days
TBUT
LF: 3.7
Note: value pre-LF but post-LASIK/PRK
TBUT
LF: 5.75*
Note: FU mean 89 days
Corneal
NR
Corneal
LF: change from BL -0.74*
Note: BL is pre-LF but post-LASIK/PRK
LF Tx may have utility in
managing dry eye symptoms following laser vision correction.
Safety NR
Petzold 2016  [73]
Case report
Germany
N = 1 patient (2 eyes) 4 years post-LASIK with severe dry eye
18 months
Single 12-min LF Tx
MGYLS
LF OD: 8
LF OS: 10
MGYLS
LF OD: 12
LF OS: 13
SPEED
LF: 20
SPEED
LF: 12
TBUT
LF OD: < 5
LF OS: < 5
TBUT
LF OD: 8
LF OS: 14
Corneal
LF OD: 2–3
LF OS: 1
Corneal
LF OD: 0
LF OS: 0
LF Tx successfully treated a case of post-LASIK dry eye that was refractory to conventional treatment.
Safety NR
Units of measure are as follows: MGYLS = number of functional glands; OSDI = points, score 0–100; SPEED = points, score 0–28; staining = scale score; TBUT = seconds
AEs adverse events, BL baseline, CL control, DED dry eye disease, FU follow-up, LASIK laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis, LF LipiFlow, MG meibomian glands, MGD meibomian gland dysfunction, MGYLS meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (glands with secretion capacity), min minutes, NR not reported, OD right eye, OS left eye, OSDI ocular surface disease index, post post-treatment, postop postoperation, pre pretreatment, preop preoperation, PRK photorefractive keratectomy, SD standard deviation, SPEED standard patient evaluation of eye dryness, TBUT tear break-up time, Tx treatment
1Data only presented in a figure. We did not extrapolate the data from the figure to avoid presenting estimated data
*P < 0.05 vs. baseline
P < 0.05 vs. LipiFlow post-LASIK group, pre-LipiFlow

Chalazion

One case report was identified that used LipiFlow as part of the treatment of chalazion with associated hyperopia. LipiFlow treatment was performed 1 month after chalazion incision and drainage (note: LipiFlow is contraindicated within 3 months of ocular surgery). After LipiFlow treatment, corneal epithelial thickness and topographic changes normalized, and VA improved toward emmetropia [74].

Discussion

The present study is the most comprehensive clinical analysis of LipiFlow in patients with MGD to date. The scientific literature obtained from 2010 (first clinical study published) through March 2024, includes 2101 patients and 3521 eyes treated with LipiFlow. Of these, effectiveness was evaluated in 2041 patients and 3401 eyes, and safety was evaluated in 1448 patients and 2443 eyes. Taken together the studies demonstrate that a single 12-min treatment with LipiFlow safely improves both subjective (patient-reported outcomes) and objective (MG function, tear production, and ocular staining) measures of MGD, and the benefits persist up to 3 years. This conclusion is supported by meta-analyses. One meta-analysis included 10 RCTs (401 LipiFlow-treated patients) published through January 2021 [75]. The analysis concluded that LipiFlow treatment can improve subjective and objective measures of MGD without an increase in AEs. Another meta-analysis included four RCTs (199 LipiFlow-treated patients) published between 2012 and 2016, and concluded that LipiFlow treatment was more efficacious than at-home treatments [76]. Corroborating with the study conclusion, members of the Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society (TFOS) Dry Eye Workshop (DEWS) II reviewed the literature of dry eye therapies, and using the modified American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practices guidelines they developed consensus guidelines [3]. The staged management and treatment recommendations for DED with MGD instruct the physician to consider treatment with LipiFlow if first-line treatments are inadequate. Finally, a recent meta-analysis applying Cochrane methodology included 13 clinical trials and concluded that a single in-office LipiFlow treatment for overall DED was not inferior to compliant, daily, ongoing use of other DED therapies (for the signs and symptoms of overall DED) [77].
In addition, the data extracted during this review demonstrate that LipiFlow treatment may be a safe and effective preoperative intervention for alleviating and preventing the MGD and dry eye associated with ocular surgery. Many patients who have MGD prior to refractive surgery continue to have it post-refractive surgery [72]. Also, there is an increased incidence of MG dysfunction or evaporative dry eye post-refractive or cataract surgery [61, 72]. To this end, the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) Cornea Clinical Committee published a consensus-based practical diagnostic ocular surface disease algorithm. The algorithm includes treatment of MGD before cataract and refractive surgery and mentions the use of LipiFlow as a viable treatment option [7]. LipiFlow is recommended not only for patients with preoperative MGD but also for those without baseline MGD [67, 69].
It is important to note that while some studies showed that eyelid hygiene, warm compress, and massage had a similar benefit to LipiFlow [27, 32, 35, 49, 50, 58], these treatments were needed 2–3 times per day for several months to be comparable to a single 12-min treatment with LipiFlow. Patients report that eyelid hygiene BID is inconvenient and eyelid massage is uncomfortable [70]. Also, compliance declines over time [51], and patients report that they forget to do it [70]. Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5% plus warm compress and eyelid compression BID was shown to be similarly effective or better than LipiFlow for the treatment of DED; however, the treatment required twice daily administration for 42 days compared with a single treatment with LipiFlow [33]. The advantage of LipiFlow treatment is the long duration of improvement in signs and symptoms of MGD after a single in-office visit without the complications of repeated intervention use as well as compliance and overall patient experience [11, 40, 4446, 48]. MGD is a chronic disease, so ideally treatment would be effective for at least 3 months to avoid pain and discomfort associated with frequent manual eyelid massage [39]. Depending upon the patient’s lifestyle and symptom severity, and due to the chronic nature of MGD, LipiFlow retreatment is likely to be necessary. One study evaluated the sustained improvement of a single LipiFlow treatment, and the participants self-assessed the adequacy of symptom relief 3–12 months post-treatment [11]. Additional dry eye treatment was requested by 3.8% (7/186) of patients at 6 months, and another 8.6% (16/186) of patients requested dry eye treatment at 12 months.
Aside from compliance issues, it is also difficult for patients to get the warm compress into the therapeutic temperature range for a duration long enough to liquify the meibum without causing thermal damage. Lipid delivery increases as eyelid temperature increases from 25 to 45 °C [8]. LipiFlow can effectively elevate the inner surface temperatures to achieve the targeted therapeutic threshold for melting obstructed meibum [8, 78]. A study was conducted that evaluated the temperature of the palpebral conjunctiva following four methods of heat therapy, each used according to the manufacturers’ instructions; namely, Bruder mask (Bruder Healthcare, Alpharetta, GA, USA), Blephasteam (Théa, Clermont-Ferrand, France), MiBoFlo (Mibo Medical, Dallas, TX, USA), and LipiFlow in a single patient with MGD. It has been shown that effective liquefaction of diseased MG requires > 40 °C of heat [8]. The study concluded that only LipiFlow was able to increase the temperature of the palpebral conjunctiva to > 40 °C [78]. Raising the temperature increases the risk of discomfort, thermal injury to the eyelid skin, and vulnerability of corneal tissue deformation [78, 79]. Despite these risks, the absence of device-related AEs in 20 studies (904 patients, 1465 eyes) confirms the low-risk safety profile of the LipiFlow. The majority of studies evaluating safety reported no discomfort or pain associated with LipiFlow treatment, which supports the patient acceptability of LipiFlow therapy. In contrast, the effectiveness of manual expression is limited by the pain induced by the forces required to express the gland [80]. According to Booranapong et al., eye discomfort/pain during LipiFlow treatment may occur primarily among patients with small eyes, narrow palpebral fissure, or deep-set eyes [27]. All AEs related to LipiFlow were transient and did not require treatment [11, 14, 34]. No studies reported serious AEs. No study reported any safety event that was unanticipated per the Instructions for Use [18]. This safety profile was additionally validated in a recent review [77].
This literature evaluation has some limitations. The results of RCTs, especially double-masked studies, are more reliable than those of other experimental designs. However, it is not possible to mask the patient due to the physical sensation of heat and directional massage, so studies were observer-masked only. A placebo effect may have confounded improvements in subjective symptoms. Nonetheless, patients consider improvement in subjective symptoms the most important measure, and the studies show improvements in patient-reported outcomes. The newer studies evaluating LipiFlow are RCTs, while the older studies are mostly open-label. Older open-label studies can have a placebo effect particularly because LipiFlow was a novel treatment. The aims of older studies were to determine the effectiveness and safety of LipiFlow treatment and also to understand how to select patients for treatment based on baseline characteristics to improve chances of success [51]. Retrospective studies have potential biases such as a lack of rigorous and impartial clinical evaluation at the follow-up visit, and lack of a control group, masking, and randomization.
There are many options to treat MGD. Accordingly, LipiFlow effectiveness and safety were compared to 14 different treatments (plus numerous combinations) and was shown repeatedly to be an effective and safe treatment option for MGD. Further, LipiFlow is the standard by which other devices that provide heat and massage aspire for noninferiority or superiority [2326, 28]. This supports the industry acceptance of the effectiveness and safety of LipiFlow.
While everyone is at risk for MGD, there are some populations that are contraindicated according to the product labelling. LipiFlow is contraindicated in patients who within the prior 3 months have had ocular surgery, ocular injury, ocular herpes, eyelid herpes, active ocular inflammation, or history of chronic recurrent ocular inflammation (e.g., retinitis, macular inflammation, choroiditis, uveitis, iritis, scleritis, episcleritis, and keratitis); have an active ocular infection; have eyelid abnormalities that affect lid function; or have an ocular surface abnormality that may compromise corneal integrity (e.g., prior chemical burn, recurrent corneal erosion, corneal epithelial defect, Grade 3 corneal fluorescein staining, or map dot fingerprint dystrophy) [18]. Patients who are not suitable for LipiFlow will need to use alternative treatments. Another barrier to use of LipiFlow is lack of patient access since not all offices have the device. It should be noted that in the past, when LipiFlow was the only device of its kind, the cost of LipiFlow was a barrier to the patient. However, current LipiFlow treatment costs are competitive with other single-use in-office modalities with similar mechanisms of action {Mukamal, 2020 #613}. Also, the current out-of-pocket cost of a single in-office LipiFlow treatment can be significantly less than the total yearly cost of daily multi-use modalities (including over-the-counter and prescription eye drops) that are prescribed to treat MGD/DED {Nau, 2024 #612}. The lack of evaluation of off-label use of combination therapies for ocular surface disease is a gap in the current knowledge. The majority of research evaluates single therapies; however, in the real-world, patients have multiple conditions that need treatment simultaneously.

Conclusions

Despite the limitations inherent to each individual study, the conclusions of this comprehensive literature review are supported by the diversity of the patient populations (geography, race, disease severity, and diagnosis), the large population treated with LipiFlow (2101 patients and 3521 eyes), the meta-analyses, and that this review analyzed all published clinical studies to date. The data obtained from 55 unique clinical studies conducted globally overwhelmingly show that LipiFlow is effective and safe for the treatment of DED associated with MGD. This comprehensive review provides the totality of usable clinical evidence and should be updated every 5 years to re-evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LipiFlow.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

Heather S. Oliff declares that she has no competing interests. Caroline A. Blackie and David Murakami are employees of Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision. Eric Donnenfeld is a consultant to Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision.

Ethical Approval

This review is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals that were performed by any of the authors. Consent for publication was obtained from the individual presented in Fig. 2.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by-nc/​4.​0/​.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat The epidemiology of dry eye disease: report of the Epidemiology Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye WorkShop (2007). Ocul Surf. 2007;5(2):93-107. The epidemiology of dry eye disease: report of the Epidemiology Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye WorkShop (2007). Ocul Surf. 2007;5(2):93-107.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Jones L, Downie LE, Korb D, Benitez-Del-Castillo JM, Dana R, Deng SX, et al. TFOS DEWS II management and therapy report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):575–628.PubMedCrossRef Jones L, Downie LE, Korb D, Benitez-Del-Castillo JM, Dana R, Deng SX, et al. TFOS DEWS II management and therapy report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):575–628.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Nichols KK, Foulks GN, Bron AJ, Glasgow BJ, Dogru M, Tsubota K, et al. The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: executive summary. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(4):1922–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Nichols KK, Foulks GN, Bron AJ, Glasgow BJ, Dogru M, Tsubota K, et al. The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: executive summary. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(4):1922–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Blackie CA, Folly E, Ruppenkamp J, Holy C. Prevalence of meibomian gland dysfunction—a systematic review and analysis of published evidence. IOVS. 2019;60(9):2736. Blackie CA, Folly E, Ruppenkamp J, Holy C. Prevalence of meibomian gland dysfunction—a systematic review and analysis of published evidence. IOVS. 2019;60(9):2736.
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Blackie CA, Korb DR, Knop E, Bedi R, Knop N, Holland EJ. Nonobvious obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction. Cornea. 2010;29(12):1333–45.PubMedCrossRef Blackie CA, Korb DR, Knop E, Bedi R, Knop N, Holland EJ. Nonobvious obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction. Cornea. 2010;29(12):1333–45.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Starr CE, Gupta PK, Farid M, Beckman KA, Chan CC, Yeu E, et al. An algorithm for the preoperative diagnosis and treatment of ocular surface disorders. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(5):669–84.PubMedCrossRef Starr CE, Gupta PK, Farid M, Beckman KA, Chan CC, Yeu E, et al. An algorithm for the preoperative diagnosis and treatment of ocular surface disorders. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(5):669–84.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Borchman D, Foulks GN, Yappert MC, Bell J, Wells E, Neravetla S, et al. Human meibum lipid conformation and thermodynamic changes with meibomian-gland dysfunction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(6):3805–17.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Borchman D, Foulks GN, Yappert MC, Bell J, Wells E, Neravetla S, et al. Human meibum lipid conformation and thermodynamic changes with meibomian-gland dysfunction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(6):3805–17.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat McCulley JP, Sciallis GF. Meibomian keratoconjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1977;84(6):788–93.PubMedCrossRef McCulley JP, Sciallis GF. Meibomian keratoconjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1977;84(6):788–93.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Blackie CA, Coleman CA, Holland EJ. The sustained effect (12 months) of a single-dose vectored thermal pulsation procedure for meibomian gland dysfunction and evaporative dry eye. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:1385–96.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Blackie CA, Coleman CA, Holland EJ. The sustained effect (12 months) of a single-dose vectored thermal pulsation procedure for meibomian gland dysfunction and evaporative dry eye. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:1385–96.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Sheppard JD, Nichols KK. Dry eye disease associated with meibomian gland dysfunction: focus on tear film characteristics and the therapeutic landscape. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12(3):1397–418.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Sheppard JD, Nichols KK. Dry eye disease associated with meibomian gland dysfunction: focus on tear film characteristics and the therapeutic landscape. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12(3):1397–418.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Korb DR, Blackie CA. Restoration of meibomian gland functionality with novel thermodynamic treatment device—a case report. Cornea. 2010;29(8):930–3.PubMedCrossRef Korb DR, Blackie CA. Restoration of meibomian gland functionality with novel thermodynamic treatment device—a case report. Cornea. 2010;29(8):930–3.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Lane SS, DuBiner HB, Epstein RJ, Ernest PH, Greiner JV, Hardten DR, et al. A new system, the LipiFlow, for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction. Cornea. 2012;31(4):396–404.PubMedCrossRef Lane SS, DuBiner HB, Epstein RJ, Ernest PH, Greiner JV, Hardten DR, et al. A new system, the LipiFlow, for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction. Cornea. 2012;31(4):396–404.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Lam PY, Shih KC, Fong PY, Chan TCY, Ng AL, Jhanji V, et al. A review on evidence-based treatments for meibomian gland dysfunction. Eye Contact Lens. 2020;46(1):3–16.PubMedCrossRef Lam PY, Shih KC, Fong PY, Chan TCY, Ng AL, Jhanji V, et al. A review on evidence-based treatments for meibomian gland dysfunction. Eye Contact Lens. 2020;46(1):3–16.PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Villani E, Marelli L, Dellavalle A, Serafino M, Nucci P. Latest evidences on meibomian gland dysfunction diagnosis and management. Ocul Surf. 2020;18(4):871–92.PubMedCrossRef Villani E, Marelli L, Dellavalle A, Serafino M, Nucci P. Latest evidences on meibomian gland dysfunction diagnosis and management. Ocul Surf. 2020;18(4):871–92.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat LipiFlow Thermal Pulsation System Instructions for Use. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care; 2021. LipiFlow Thermal Pulsation System Instructions for Use. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care; 2021.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Hu JG, Dang VT, Chang DH, Goldberg DF, McKinnon C, Makedonsky K, et al. Performance of a translucent activator for LipiFlow Vectored Thermal Pulse (VTP) treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:963–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Hu JG, Dang VT, Chang DH, Goldberg DF, McKinnon C, Makedonsky K, et al. Performance of a translucent activator for LipiFlow Vectored Thermal Pulse (VTP) treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:963–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Blackie CA, Carlson AN, Korb DR. Treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction and dry eye symptoms with a single-dose vectored thermal pulsation: a review. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2015;26(4):306–13.PubMedCrossRef Blackie CA, Carlson AN, Korb DR. Treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction and dry eye symptoms with a single-dose vectored thermal pulsation: a review. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2015;26(4):306–13.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Kable AK, Pich J, Maslin-Prothero SE. A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12 step guideline for authors. Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32(8):878–86.PubMedCrossRef Kable AK, Pich J, Maslin-Prothero SE. A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12 step guideline for authors. Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32(8):878–86.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Meng Z, Chu X, Zhang C, Liu H, Yang R, Huang Y, et al. Efficacy and safety evaluation of a single thermal pulsation system treatment (LipiFlow®) on meibomian gland dysfunction: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int Ophthalmol. 2023;43(4):1175–84.PubMedCrossRef Meng Z, Chu X, Zhang C, Liu H, Yang R, Huang Y, et al. Efficacy and safety evaluation of a single thermal pulsation system treatment (LipiFlow®) on meibomian gland dysfunction: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int Ophthalmol. 2023;43(4):1175–84.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Wesley G, Bickle K, Downing J, Fisher B, Greene B, Heinrich C, et al. Comparison of two thermal pulsation systems in the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction: a randomized, multicenter study. Optom Vis Sci. 2022;99(4):323–32.PubMedCrossRef Wesley G, Bickle K, Downing J, Fisher B, Greene B, Heinrich C, et al. Comparison of two thermal pulsation systems in the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction: a randomized, multicenter study. Optom Vis Sci. 2022;99(4):323–32.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Holland EJ, Loh J, Bloomenstein M, Thompson V, Wirta D, Dhamdhere K. A comparison of TearCare and LipiFlow systems in reducing dry eye disease symptoms associated with meibomian gland disease. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:2861–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Holland EJ, Loh J, Bloomenstein M, Thompson V, Wirta D, Dhamdhere K. A comparison of TearCare and LipiFlow systems in reducing dry eye disease symptoms associated with meibomian gland disease. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:2861–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Li S, Yang K, Wang J, Li S, Zhu L, Feng J, et al. Effect of a novel thermostatic device on meibomian gland dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial in Chinese patients. Ophthalmol Ther. 2022;11(1):261–70.PubMedCrossRef Li S, Yang K, Wang J, Li S, Zhu L, Feng J, et al. Effect of a novel thermostatic device on meibomian gland dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial in Chinese patients. Ophthalmol Ther. 2022;11(1):261–70.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Gupta PK, Holland EJ, Hovanesian J, Loh J, Jackson MA, Karpecki PM, et al. TearCare for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction in adult patients with dry eye disease: a masked randomized controlled trial. Cornea. 2022;41(4):417–26.PubMedCrossRef Gupta PK, Holland EJ, Hovanesian J, Loh J, Jackson MA, Karpecki PM, et al. TearCare for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction in adult patients with dry eye disease: a masked randomized controlled trial. Cornea. 2022;41(4):417–26.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Booranapong W, Prabhasawat P, Chotikavanich S, T S, Naranunn P, Thaweerattanasilp W, et al. Comparison of an automated thermodynamic treatment system (LipiFlow) and warm compresses for the treatment of moderate severity of meibomian gland dysfunction. Siriraj Med J. 2020;72(1):79–86.CrossRef Booranapong W, Prabhasawat P, Chotikavanich S, T S, Naranunn P, Thaweerattanasilp W, et al. Comparison of an automated thermodynamic treatment system (LipiFlow) and warm compresses for the treatment of moderate severity of meibomian gland dysfunction. Siriraj Med J. 2020;72(1):79–86.CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Tauber J, Owen J, Bloomenstein M, Hovanesian J, Bullimore MA. Comparison of the iLUX and the LipiFlow for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction and symptoms: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:405–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Tauber J, Owen J, Bloomenstein M, Hovanesian J, Bullimore MA. Comparison of the iLUX and the LipiFlow for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction and symptoms: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:405–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat He J-ZZM. Comparative study between the meibomian pulsation system and the warm compress treatment for MGD. Guoji Yanke Zazhi. 2018;18(7):1324–8. He J-ZZM. Comparative study between the meibomian pulsation system and the warm compress treatment for MGD. Guoji Yanke Zazhi. 2018;18(7):1324–8.
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Hagen KB, Bedi R, Blackie CA, Christenson-Akagi KJ. Comparison of a single-dose vectored thermal pulsation procedure with a 3-month course of daily oral doxycycline for moderate-to-severe meibomian gland dysfunction. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:161–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Hagen KB, Bedi R, Blackie CA, Christenson-Akagi KJ. Comparison of a single-dose vectored thermal pulsation procedure with a 3-month course of daily oral doxycycline for moderate-to-severe meibomian gland dysfunction. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:161–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Finis D, Konig C, Hayajneh J, Borrelli M, Schrader S, Geerling G. Six-month effects of a thermodynamic treatment for MGD and implications of meibomian gland atrophy. Cornea. 2014;33(12):1265–70.PubMedCrossRef Finis D, Konig C, Hayajneh J, Borrelli M, Schrader S, Geerling G. Six-month effects of a thermodynamic treatment for MGD and implications of meibomian gland atrophy. Cornea. 2014;33(12):1265–70.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Finis D, Hayajneh J, Konig C, Borrelli M, Schrader S, Geerling G. Evaluation of an automated thermodynamic treatment (LipiFlow®) system for meibomian gland dysfunction: a prospective, randomized, observer-masked trial. Ocul Surf. 2014;12(2):146–54.PubMedCrossRef Finis D, Hayajneh J, Konig C, Borrelli M, Schrader S, Geerling G. Evaluation of an automated thermodynamic treatment (LipiFlow®) system for meibomian gland dysfunction: a prospective, randomized, observer-masked trial. Ocul Surf. 2014;12(2):146–54.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Tauber J. A 6-week, prospective, randomized, single-masked study of Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5% versus thermal pulsation procedure for treatment of inflammatory meibomian gland dysfunction. Cornea. 2020;39(4):403–7.PubMedCrossRef Tauber J. A 6-week, prospective, randomized, single-masked study of Lifitegrast ophthalmic solution 5% versus thermal pulsation procedure for treatment of inflammatory meibomian gland dysfunction. Cornea. 2020;39(4):403–7.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Blackie CA, Coleman CA, Nichols KK, Jones L, Chen PQ, Melton R, et al. A single vectored thermal pulsation treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction increases mean comfortable contact lens wearing time by approximately 4 hours per day. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:169–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Blackie CA, Coleman CA, Nichols KK, Jones L, Chen PQ, Melton R, et al. A single vectored thermal pulsation treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction increases mean comfortable contact lens wearing time by approximately 4 hours per day. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:169–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Baumann A, Cochener B. Meibomian gland dysfunction: a comparative study of modern treatments. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2014;37(4):303–12.PubMedCrossRef Baumann A, Cochener B. Meibomian gland dysfunction: a comparative study of modern treatments. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2014;37(4):303–12.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Dierker DS, Hauswirth SG. Thermal pulsation with or without dexamethasone intracanalicular insert for meibomian gland dysfunction: a prospective, masked trial. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:1477–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Dierker DS, Hauswirth SG. Thermal pulsation with or without dexamethasone intracanalicular insert for meibomian gland dysfunction: a prospective, masked trial. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:1477–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Laufenbock C. Thermal pulsation system (LipiFlow®) for treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) from the perspective of an ophthalmologist in private practice. Ophthalmologie. 2022;119(6):605–10.PubMed Laufenbock C. Thermal pulsation system (LipiFlow®) for treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) from the perspective of an ophthalmologist in private practice. Ophthalmologie. 2022;119(6):605–10.PubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhao Y, Xie J, Li J, Fu Y, Lin X, Wang S, et al. Evaluation of monocular treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction with an automated thermodynamic system in elderly Chinese patients: a contralateral eye study. J Ophthalmol. 2016;2016:9640643.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Zhao Y, Xie J, Li J, Fu Y, Lin X, Wang S, et al. Evaluation of monocular treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction with an automated thermodynamic system in elderly Chinese patients: a contralateral eye study. J Ophthalmol. 2016;2016:9640643.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Liu W, Lin T, Gong L. Meibomian gland dysfunction patients benefit in ocular parameters and tear chemokines after thermal pulsation treatment. Int J Med Sci. 2023;20(1):11–22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Liu W, Lin T, Gong L. Meibomian gland dysfunction patients benefit in ocular parameters and tear chemokines after thermal pulsation treatment. Int J Med Sci. 2023;20(1):11–22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Novo-Diez A, Lopez-Miguel A, Fernandez I, Blanco-Vazquez M, Valencia-Sandonis C, Enriquez-de-Salamanca A, et al. Effect of a single vectored thermal pulsation treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction patients under controlled environmental conditions. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):16761.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Novo-Diez A, Lopez-Miguel A, Fernandez I, Blanco-Vazquez M, Valencia-Sandonis C, Enriquez-de-Salamanca A, et al. Effect of a single vectored thermal pulsation treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction patients under controlled environmental conditions. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):16761.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Fallah S, Loer CJ. Effects of vectored thermal pulsation on objective tear film measures. Cornea. 2021;40(12):1594–9.PubMedCrossRef Fallah S, Loer CJ. Effects of vectored thermal pulsation on objective tear film measures. Cornea. 2021;40(12):1594–9.PubMedCrossRef
42.
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Li B, Fu H, Liu T, Xu M. Comparison of the therapeutic effect of Meibomian Thermal Pulsation LipiFlow® on obstructive and hyposecretory meibomian gland dysfunction patients. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40(12):3469–79.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Li B, Fu H, Liu T, Xu M. Comparison of the therapeutic effect of Meibomian Thermal Pulsation LipiFlow® on obstructive and hyposecretory meibomian gland dysfunction patients. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40(12):3469–79.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Godin MR, Stinnett SS, Gupta PK. Outcomes of thermal pulsation treatment for dry eye syndrome in patients with Sjögren's disease. Cornea. 2018;37(9):1155–8.PubMedCrossRef Godin MR, Stinnett SS, Gupta PK. Outcomes of thermal pulsation treatment for dry eye syndrome in patients with Sjögren's disease. Cornea. 2018;37(9):1155–8.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Greiner JV. Long-term (3 year) effects of a single thermal pulsation system treatment on meibomian gland function and dry eye symptoms. Eye Contact Lens. 2016;42(2):99–107.PubMedCrossRef Greiner JV. Long-term (3 year) effects of a single thermal pulsation system treatment on meibomian gland function and dry eye symptoms. Eye Contact Lens. 2016;42(2):99–107.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Greiner JV. Long-term (12-month) improvement in meibomian gland function and reduced dry eye symptoms with a single thermal pulsation treatment. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;41(6):524–30.PubMedCrossRef Greiner JV. Long-term (12-month) improvement in meibomian gland function and reduced dry eye symptoms with a single thermal pulsation treatment. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;41(6):524–30.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Korb DR, Blackie CA. Case report: a successful LipiFlow treatment of a single case of meibomian gland dysfunction and dropout. Eye Contact Lens. 2013;39(3):e1–3.PubMedCrossRef Korb DR, Blackie CA. Case report: a successful LipiFlow treatment of a single case of meibomian gland dysfunction and dropout. Eye Contact Lens. 2013;39(3):e1–3.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Greiner JV. A single LipiFlow® Thermal Pulsation System treatment improves meibomian gland function and reduces dry eye symptoms for 9 months. Curr Eye Res. 2012;37(4):272–8.PubMedCrossRef Greiner JV. A single LipiFlow® Thermal Pulsation System treatment improves meibomian gland function and reduces dry eye symptoms for 9 months. Curr Eye Res. 2012;37(4):272–8.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedland BR, Fleming CP, Blackie CA, Korb DR. A novel thermodynamic treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction. Curr Eye Res. 2011;36(2):79–87.PubMedCrossRef Friedland BR, Fleming CP, Blackie CA, Korb DR. A novel thermodynamic treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction. Curr Eye Res. 2011;36(2):79–87.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhao Y, Veerappan A, Yeo S, Rooney DM, Acharya RU, Tan JH, et al. Clinical trial of thermal pulsation (LipiFlow) in meibomian gland dysfunction with preteatment meibography. Eye Contact Lens. 2016;42(6):339–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Zhao Y, Veerappan A, Yeo S, Rooney DM, Acharya RU, Tan JH, et al. Clinical trial of thermal pulsation (LipiFlow) in meibomian gland dysfunction with preteatment meibography. Eye Contact Lens. 2016;42(6):339–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Satjawatcharaphong P, Ge S, Lin MC. Clinical outcomes associated with thermal pulsation system treatment. Optom Vis Sci. 2015;92(9):e334–41.PubMedCrossRef Satjawatcharaphong P, Ge S, Lin MC. Clinical outcomes associated with thermal pulsation system treatment. Optom Vis Sci. 2015;92(9):e334–41.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Hura AS, Epitropoulos AT, Czyz CN, Rosenberg ED. Visible meibomian gland structure increases after vectored thermal pulsation treatment in dry eye disease patients with meibomian gland dysfunction. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:4287–96.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Hura AS, Epitropoulos AT, Czyz CN, Rosenberg ED. Visible meibomian gland structure increases after vectored thermal pulsation treatment in dry eye disease patients with meibomian gland dysfunction. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:4287–96.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim MJ, Stinnett SS, Gupta PK. Effect of thermal pulsation treatment on tear film parameters in dry eye disease patients. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:883–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kim MJ, Stinnett SS, Gupta PK. Effect of thermal pulsation treatment on tear film parameters in dry eye disease patients. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:883–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Epitropoulos AT, Goslin K, Bedi R, Blackie CA. Meibomian gland dysfunction patients with novel Sjögren’s syndrome biomarkers benefit significantly from a single vectored thermal pulsation procedure: a retrospective analysis. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:701–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Epitropoulos AT, Goslin K, Bedi R, Blackie CA. Meibomian gland dysfunction patients with novel Sjögren’s syndrome biomarkers benefit significantly from a single vectored thermal pulsation procedure: a retrospective analysis. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:701–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Liang Q, Liu H, Guo Y, Cui R, Li B, Wang N, et al. Clinical evaluation of a thermodynamic treatment system for meibomian gland dysfunction. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2015;51(12):924–31.PubMed Liang Q, Liu H, Guo Y, Cui R, Li B, Wang N, et al. Clinical evaluation of a thermodynamic treatment system for meibomian gland dysfunction. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2015;51(12):924–31.PubMed
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Chung HS, Rhim JW, Park JH. Combination treatment with intense pulsed light, thermal pulsation (LipiFlow), and meibomian gland expression for refractory meibomian gland dysfunction. Int Ophthalmol. 2022;42(11):3311–9.PubMedCrossRef Chung HS, Rhim JW, Park JH. Combination treatment with intense pulsed light, thermal pulsation (LipiFlow), and meibomian gland expression for refractory meibomian gland dysfunction. Int Ophthalmol. 2022;42(11):3311–9.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim HJ, Park JH. Clinical efficacy of immediate manual meibomian gland expression after thermal pulsation (LipiFlow) for obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction: comparison with thermal pulsation. Cornea. 2020;39(8):975–9.PubMedCrossRef Kim HJ, Park JH. Clinical efficacy of immediate manual meibomian gland expression after thermal pulsation (LipiFlow) for obstructive meibomian gland dysfunction: comparison with thermal pulsation. Cornea. 2020;39(8):975–9.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Arita R, Fukuoka S, Kawashima M. Proposed algorithm for management of meibomian gland dysfunction based on noninvasive meibography. J Clin Med. 2020;10(1):65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Arita R, Fukuoka S, Kawashima M. Proposed algorithm for management of meibomian gland dysfunction based on noninvasive meibography. J Clin Med. 2020;10(1):65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Gibbons A, Waren D, Yesilirmak N, Davis K, Valenzuela F, Murillo JC, et al. Ocular surface parameters predicting patient satisfaction after a single vectored thermal pulsation procedure for management of symptomatic meibomian gland dysfunction. Cornea. 2017;36(6):679–83.PubMedCrossRef Gibbons A, Waren D, Yesilirmak N, Davis K, Valenzuela F, Murillo JC, et al. Ocular surface parameters predicting patient satisfaction after a single vectored thermal pulsation procedure for management of symptomatic meibomian gland dysfunction. Cornea. 2017;36(6):679–83.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Craig JP, Nelson JD, Azar DT, Belmonte C, Bron AJ, Chauhan SK, et al. TFOS DEWS II report executive summary. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(4):802–12.PubMedCrossRef Craig JP, Nelson JD, Azar DT, Belmonte C, Bron AJ, Chauhan SK, et al. TFOS DEWS II report executive summary. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(4):802–12.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Miura M, Inomata T, Nakamura M, Sung J, Nagino K, Midorikawa-Inomata A, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of dry eye disease after cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmol Ther. 2022;11(4):1309–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Miura M, Inomata T, Nakamura M, Sung J, Nagino K, Midorikawa-Inomata A, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of dry eye disease after cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmol Ther. 2022;11(4):1309–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Chang P, Qian S, Xu Z, Huang F, Zhao Y, Li Z, et al. Meibomian gland morphology changes after cataract surgery: a contra-lateral eye study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8: 766393.PubMedCrossRef Chang P, Qian S, Xu Z, Huang F, Zhao Y, Li Z, et al. Meibomian gland morphology changes after cataract surgery: a contra-lateral eye study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8: 766393.PubMedCrossRef
63.
64.
Zurück zum Zitat Szabelska P, Golebiewska J, Rozycki R. Impact of thermal pulsation system therapy on pre-operative intraocular lens calculations before cataract surgery in patients with meibomian gland disfunction. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023;59(4):658.PubMedCrossRef Szabelska P, Golebiewska J, Rozycki R. Impact of thermal pulsation system therapy on pre-operative intraocular lens calculations before cataract surgery in patients with meibomian gland disfunction. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023;59(4):658.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Matossian C. Impact of thermal pulsation treatment on astigmatism management and outcomes in meibomian gland dysfunction patients undergoing cataract surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:2283–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Matossian C. Impact of thermal pulsation treatment on astigmatism management and outcomes in meibomian gland dysfunction patients undergoing cataract surgery. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:2283–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
66.
Zurück zum Zitat Mencucci R, Mercuri S, Cennamo M, Morelli A, Favuzza E. Efficacy of vector thermal pulsation treatment in reducing postcataract surgery dry eye disease in patients affected by meibomian gland dysfunction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023;49(4):423–9.PubMedCrossRef Mencucci R, Mercuri S, Cennamo M, Morelli A, Favuzza E. Efficacy of vector thermal pulsation treatment in reducing postcataract surgery dry eye disease in patients affected by meibomian gland dysfunction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023;49(4):423–9.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Zurück zum Zitat Matossian C, Chang DH, Whitman J, Clinch TE, Hu J, Ji L, et al. Preoperative treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction with a vectored thermal pulsation system prior to extended depth of focus IOL implantation. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12(5):2427–39.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Matossian C, Chang DH, Whitman J, Clinch TE, Hu J, Ji L, et al. Preoperative treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction with a vectored thermal pulsation system prior to extended depth of focus IOL implantation. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12(5):2427–39.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhao Y, Li J, Xue K, Xie J, Xie G, Gu S, et al. Preoperative management of MGD with vectored thermal pulsation before cataract surgery: a prospective, controlled clinical trial. Semin Ophthalmol. 2021;36(1–2):2–8.PubMedCrossRef Zhao Y, Li J, Xue K, Xie J, Xie G, Gu S, et al. Preoperative management of MGD with vectored thermal pulsation before cataract surgery: a prospective, controlled clinical trial. Semin Ophthalmol. 2021;36(1–2):2–8.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Zurück zum Zitat Park J, Yoo YS, Shin K, Han G, Arita R, Lim DH, et al. Effects of LipiFlow treatment prior to cataract surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;230:264–75.PubMedCrossRef Park J, Yoo YS, Shin K, Han G, Arita R, Lim DH, et al. Effects of LipiFlow treatment prior to cataract surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;230:264–75.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Zurück zum Zitat Kasetsuwan N, Suwajanakorn D, Tantipat C, Reinprayoon U. The efficacy between conventional lid hygiene and additional thermal pulsatile system in meibomian gland dysfunction patients treated with long-term anti-glaucoma medications in a randomized controlled trial. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:2891–902.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kasetsuwan N, Suwajanakorn D, Tantipat C, Reinprayoon U. The efficacy between conventional lid hygiene and additional thermal pulsatile system in meibomian gland dysfunction patients treated with long-term anti-glaucoma medications in a randomized controlled trial. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:2891–902.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
71.
Zurück zum Zitat Shetty R, Khamar P, Nair AP, Pandian PR, Vaidya TA, Trivedi D, et al. Assessing clinical and molecular outcomes of prophylactic thermal pulsation therapy on ocular surface health following refractive surgery. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023;71(4):1508–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Shetty R, Khamar P, Nair AP, Pandian PR, Vaidya TA, Trivedi D, et al. Assessing clinical and molecular outcomes of prophylactic thermal pulsation therapy on ocular surface health following refractive surgery. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023;71(4):1508–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
72.
Zurück zum Zitat Schallhorn CS, Schallhorn JM, Hannan S, Schallhorn SC. Effectiveness of an eyelid thermal pulsation procedure to treat recalcitrant dry eye symptoms after laser vision correction. J Refract Surg. 2017;33(1):30–6.PubMedCrossRef Schallhorn CS, Schallhorn JM, Hannan S, Schallhorn SC. Effectiveness of an eyelid thermal pulsation procedure to treat recalcitrant dry eye symptoms after laser vision correction. J Refract Surg. 2017;33(1):30–6.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Zurück zum Zitat Petzold G, Bedi R, Blackie CA. Management of dry-eye syndrome after laser in situ keratomileusis with a vectored thermal pulsation system. JCRS Online Case Reports. 2016;4:34–7.CrossRef Petzold G, Bedi R, Blackie CA. Management of dry-eye syndrome after laser in situ keratomileusis with a vectored thermal pulsation system. JCRS Online Case Reports. 2016;4:34–7.CrossRef
74.
Zurück zum Zitat Kalas T, Gunn D. Corneal epithelial remodeling as a cause of chalazion-induced hypermetropia. Cornea. 2022;41(6):785–8.PubMedCrossRef Kalas T, Gunn D. Corneal epithelial remodeling as a cause of chalazion-induced hypermetropia. Cornea. 2022;41(6):785–8.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Zurück zum Zitat Hu J, Zhu S, Liu X. Efficacy and safety of a vectored thermal pulsation system (LipiFlow®) in the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;260(1):25–39.PubMedCrossRef Hu J, Zhu S, Liu X. Efficacy and safety of a vectored thermal pulsation system (LipiFlow®) in the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;260(1):25–39.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Zurück zum Zitat Pang SP, Chen YT, Tam KW, Lin IC, Loh EW. Efficacy of vectored thermal pulsation and warm compress treatments in meibomian gland dysfunction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cornea. 2019;38(6):690–7.PubMedCrossRef Pang SP, Chen YT, Tam KW, Lin IC, Loh EW. Efficacy of vectored thermal pulsation and warm compress treatments in meibomian gland dysfunction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cornea. 2019;38(6):690–7.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Zurück zum Zitat Pucker AD, Yim TW, Rueff E, Ngo W, Tichenor AA, Conto JE. LipiFlow for the treatment of dry eye disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;2(2): CD015448.PubMed Pucker AD, Yim TW, Rueff E, Ngo W, Tichenor AA, Conto JE. LipiFlow for the treatment of dry eye disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;2(2): CD015448.PubMed
78.
Zurück zum Zitat Kenrick CJ, Alloo SS. The limitation of applying heat to the external lid surface: a case of recalcitrant meibomian gland dysfunction. Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2017;8(1):7–12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kenrick CJ, Alloo SS. The limitation of applying heat to the external lid surface: a case of recalcitrant meibomian gland dysfunction. Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2017;8(1):7–12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
79.
Zurück zum Zitat McMonnies CW, Korb DR, Blackie CA. The role of heat in rubbing and massage-related corneal deformation. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2012;35(4):148–54.PubMedCrossRef McMonnies CW, Korb DR, Blackie CA. The role of heat in rubbing and massage-related corneal deformation. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2012;35(4):148–54.PubMedCrossRef
80.
Zurück zum Zitat Korb DR, Blackie CA. Meibomian gland therapeutic expression: quantifying the applied pressure and the limitation of resulting pain. Eye Contact Lens. 2011;37(5):298–301.PubMedCrossRef Korb DR, Blackie CA. Meibomian gland therapeutic expression: quantifying the applied pressure and the limitation of resulting pain. Eye Contact Lens. 2011;37(5):298–301.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Zurück zum Zitat Ambaw YA, Fuchs D, Raida M, Mazengia NT, Torta F, Wheelock CE, et al. Changes of tear lipid mediators after eyelid warming or thermopulsation treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction. Prostaglandins Other Lipid Mediat. 2020;151: 106474.PubMedCrossRef Ambaw YA, Fuchs D, Raida M, Mazengia NT, Torta F, Wheelock CE, et al. Changes of tear lipid mediators after eyelid warming or thermopulsation treatment for meibomian gland dysfunction. Prostaglandins Other Lipid Mediat. 2020;151: 106474.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Zurück zum Zitat Yeo S, Tan JH, Acharya UR, Sudarshan VK, Tong L. Longitudinal changes in tear evaporation rates after eyelid warming therapies in meibomian gland dysfunction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(4):1974–81.PubMedCrossRef Yeo S, Tan JH, Acharya UR, Sudarshan VK, Tong L. Longitudinal changes in tear evaporation rates after eyelid warming therapies in meibomian gland dysfunction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(4):1974–81.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Vectored Thermal Pulsation as a Treatment for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction: A Review Spanning 15 Years
verfasst von
Caroline A. Blackie
David Murakami
Eric Donnenfeld
Heather S. Oliff
Publikationsdatum
15.06.2024
Verlag
Springer Healthcare
Erschienen in
Ophthalmology and Therapy / Ausgabe 8/2024
Print ISSN: 2193-8245
Elektronische ISSN: 2193-6528
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-024-00976-1

Kompaktes Leitlinien-Wissen Innere Medizin (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

Mit medbee Pocketcards schnell und sicher entscheiden.
Leitlinien-Wissen kostenlos und immer griffbereit auf ihrem Desktop, Handy oder Tablet.

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Podcast

Magendarminfekte: Dos and Don'ts bei Kleinkindern

Die Leitlinie zur akuten infektiösen Gastroenteritis wurde 2024 umfassend überarbeitet. Cola und Saft zur oralen Hydratation und einige Antidiarrhoika sollten vermieden werden. Von einem standardmäßigen Erregerpanel wird abgeraten. Die Hintergründe zu diesen und weiteren Empfehlungen erläutert Leitlinienkoordinator Prof. Carsten Posovszky.

Körperlich fitte Krebskranke leben länger

Krebspatienten, auch und vor allem solche in fortgeschrittenen Stadien, profitieren offenbar von guter körperlicher Verfassung. Hohe Muskelkraft und kardiorespiratorische Fitness sind laut Ergebnissen einer Metaanalyse mit geringerer Mortalität assoziiert.

Vorhofflimmern: Antikoagulation vor Schlaganfall von Vorteil

Erleiden Menschen mit Vorhofflimmern einen ischämischen Schlaganfall, ist dieser weniger schwer, auch sind Infarktgröße und Blutungsrisiko geringer, wenn sie zuvor orale Antikoagulanzien erhalten haben. Die Art der Antikoagulation spielt dabei keine Rolle.

HCL-Systeme bei Typ-1-Diabetes: Blutzuckerkontrolle besser, Risiko für Ketoazidose aber höher

Eine bessere Blutzuckerkontrolle und weniger Fälle von hypoglykämischem Koma, dafür mehr diabetische Ketoazidosen. Dieses HCL-Insulin-Therapie-Profil zeigte sich in einem Vergleich von Hybrid-Closed-Loop(HCL)- und Open-Loop-Systemen bei Typ-I-Diabetes im DPV-Register.

EKG Essentials: EKG befunden mit System (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

In diesem CME-Kurs können Sie Ihr Wissen zur EKG-Befundung anhand von zwölf Video-Tutorials auffrischen und 10 CME-Punkte sammeln.
Praxisnah, relevant und mit vielen Tipps & Tricks vom Profi.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.