MACULAR HOLE FORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH INTENSE PULSED LIGHT THERAPY

Intense pulsed light treatment for the management of meibomian gland dysfunction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is one of the most common disorders encountered by ophthalmologists, and its management can prove challenging for both clinicians and patients. Intense pulsed light (IPL), which has been historically used in the field of dermatology, has emerged as a tool to help improve meibomian gland function. The goal of this review is to assess the clinical efficacy, utility, and safety of IPL for the treatment of MGD.

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent randomized controlled trials, IPL has been shown to improve meibomian gland function, and subsequently tear film quality and dry eye symptoms. The mechanism of action still remains unclear. Recent literature suggests that IPL may also be used in conjunction with other therapies, such as meibomian gland expression, low-level light therapy, and thermal pulsation. Careful attention should be placed on each patient's Fitzpatrick skin type, as well as protecting the ocular structures to reduce the risk of adverse effects. Cost, accessibility, as well as a limited duration of efficacy may be drawbacks.

SUMMARY

There is significant evidence supporting that IPL may be used as a potential well tolerated and effective treatment for MGD, though there are certain caveats regarding its long-term efficacy, accessibility, and cost.

Is It Possible for Light-Based Hair Removal Home Devices to Induce Ocular Damage? Systematic Review

Light-based hair removal home devices emit intense pulse light (IPL) or Diode laser. While the Food and Drug Administration controls them in the US, Europe continues to classify them as cosmetic products. Emerging concerns are: what if an unprotected eye is inadvertently exposed to light emission? Or if the consumer tries to overcome the protective safety features? We performed this systematic review by searching the Medline, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases to investigate the ocular damage reported after exposure to IPL for hair removal. We could not identify any case reported following exposure to home devices; however, a total of 20 patients were identified with iris atrophy, anterior chamber inflammation, and/or retinal pigment epithelium damage following exposure to office IPL or Diode lights. 40% were not using any protective eyewear during the light procedure. The reported fluences were in the range of 20-24 J/cm2. Although the ocular damage was identified following office devices, the reported fluences were within the home device's limits. For that, manufacturers should provide clear instructions on the package regarding the ocular hazards, the importance of using protective goggles, and a firm warning not to overcome the contact sensors. Home device-induced ocular damage is still a concern, perhaps under-reported.

Adverse Events of Light-Assisted Hair Removal: An Updated Review

BACKGROUND

With light-assisted hair removal becoming widely used, reports of adverse effects are increasing.

OBJECTIVE

To review all the reported optical incidents and cutaneous complications of laser or intense pulse light-assisted hair removal.

METHODS

A PubMed database systematic search was performed to identify studies reporting such adverse events before July 2022 using the Mesh terms "adverse effects" AND "hair removal" AND ("laser" OR "intense pulse light").

RESULTS

Altogether, 358 references were identified. After excluding duplicates, unrelated articles, guidelines, and conference abstracts, then adding references from studies bibliography, 104 publications were included. Ocular incidents consisted of anterior uveitis, iritis and iris atrophy, pupillary distortion, posterior synechiae, anterior chamber pigment, and cataracts in the anterior subcapsular region. Cutaneous complications consisted of pain, burns, folliculitis, leukotrichia, paradoxical hypertrichosis, pigmentary changes, changes in nevi, pili bigemini, herpes infection, hyperhidrosis, bromhidrosis, Fox-Fordyce disease, and frostbite from the cooling system. They were mostly correlated to skin type and body area as well as to light device and set parameters. Intense pulse light devices were found to be less painful than alexandrite laser, yet more painful than diode laser; Nd:YAG laser had the highest pain score.

CONCLUSION

Optical incidents can be systematically avoided. Cutaneous complications are usually related to professional errors and patient characteristics. Better knowledge of laser physics and adequate training of laser operators are key recommendations to avoid undesirable side effects. Safety recommendations help prevent most of the reported complications.