Evaluation Of Different Approaches In The Treatment Of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction
Published 2025 - 43rd Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PO611 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/99gs-5w23
Authors: Daniel Romero* 1 , Claudia Tarazona 1 , Ainhoa Fernández 1 , Nieves Bascuñana 1 , Pere Climent 1 , Alicia Cárceles 1 , Jorge Alió 2
1Ophthamology,General University Hospital of Elche,Elche,Spain, 2Ophthamology,Miguel Hernandez University ,Elche,Spain;Ophthamology,Vissum Ophthalmological Institute,Alicante,Spain
Purpose
We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different treatment methods by comparing them in the Meibomian Gland Dysfunction (MGD) cases we encountered in our clinic.
Setting
Single-center,Prospective clinical study, the Department of Ophthalmology, Necip Fazıl City Hospital,Kahramanmaraş,Türkiye
Methods
We enrolled 92 cases MGD who underwent IPL, treated with oral azithromycin and doxycycline, topical cyclosporine and preservative-free artificial tears containing polyvinyl alcohol and povidone. Ocular surface parameters, including the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), tear break-up time (TBUT), SPEED score, and meibomian gland parameters.
Results
The intensive pulsed light (IPL) therapy group demonstrated a significant reduction in symptom scores with a mean decrease of 3.2 ± 0.5 (p < 0.001) compared to the conservative treatment group, which exhibited a mean decrease of 1.1 ± 0.6. Similarly, the group receiving oral antibiotics showed a statistically significant improvement in tear film break-up time, increasing by 2.5 ± 0.7 seconds (p = 0.02), whereas the topical cyclosporine group experienced a more modest increase of 1.0 ± 0.4 seconds (p = 0.04). These results indicate that both IPL therapy and oral antibiotic treatment offer superior efficacy compared to standard conservative management in improving clinical outcomes in MGD patients.Treatments improved MGD symptoms
Conclusions
There are different treatment methods for MGD. All treatment methods are successful with a conservative approach.