Management of Post-LASIK Dry Eye with Intense Pulsed Light in Combination with 0.1% Sodium Hyaluronate and Heated Eye Mask

INTRODUCTION: Laser in situ keratomelieusis (LASIK) is one of the most frequently performed refractive treatments. Dry eye (DE) is common in patients after LASIK and can be bothersome postoperatively. Therapies such as intense pulsed light (IPL), sodium hyaluronate (SH) and heated eye mask (HEM) have been reported to improve signs and symptoms of DE . AIM: The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate and compare the effects of IPL and 0.1% SH (IPL group, 50 eyes) and IPL in combination with 0.1% SH and HEM (IPL + group, 50 eyes) in participants with persistent post-LASIK DE. METHODS: The final analysis included 100 patients (100 eyes) who had LASIK for myopic correction and had been experiencing moderate to severe DE following LASIK for over a year. Participants were randomly assigned to either the IPL group (2 IPL sessions) or IPL + group (2 IPL sessions and daily HEM for 4 weeks), and both groups continued the use of daily 0.1% SH (HYLO-COMOD®) preservative-free eye drops. Non-invasive tear break-up time (NITBUT), tear film lipid layer (TFLL), lower tear meniscus height (LTMH), meibomian gland quality (MGQ), meibomian gland expressibility (MGEx), corneal fluorescein staining (CFS), ocular surface disease index (OSDI) and artificial tear usage (ATU) survey were assessed at baseline (BL) and follow-up at 2 (F1) and 4 weeks (F2). RESULTS: Following the treatment protocol, all dry eye (DE) parameters assessed in this study improved significantly (P < 0.05) in both groups at F2 compared with their respective BL measurements. Inter-group comparison at F2 found significant differences in their NITBUT (IPL: 6.06 ± 0.59 vs. IPL +: 6.67 ± 0.86, P < 0.001), TFLL (IPL: 1.90 ± 0.65 vs. IPL +: 1.60 ± 0.64, P = 0.021), LTMH (IPL: 0.186 ± 0.053 vs. 0.204 ± 0.034, P = 0.003), MGQ (IPL: 1.48 ± 0.54 vs. IPL +: 1.26 ± 0.56, P = 0.026), MGEx (IPL: 1.62 ± 0.53 vs. IPL +: 1.44 ± 0.50, P = 0.038) and OSDI (IPL: 32.54 ± 6.85 vs. IPL +: 29.76 ± 4.74, P = 0.001), while CFS score (IPL: 4.02 ± 0.65 vs. IPL +: 3.96 ± 0.73, P = 0.652) and ATU (IPL: 1.88 ± 0.63 vs. IPL +: 1.72 ± 0.50, P = 0.159) showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: Post-LASIK DE signs and symptoms can be improved by combining therapies such as IPL, HEM and 0.1% SH. Increased TFLL due to a combination of IPL, 0.1% SH and HEM had a greater positive impact on the subjective and objective DE measurements in participants with persistent post-LASIK DE.