Below are the most recent papers showing IPL to be helpful for Dry Eye Symptoms.
If I could find the paper was sponsored by an IPL company, I have noted that as well.
1. Cornea. 2019 Nov 15. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002204. [Epub ahead of print]
Efficacy and Safety of Intense Pulsed Light in Patients With Meibomian Gland Dysfunction-A Randomized, Double-Masked, Sham-Controlled Clinical Trial.
To study the efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light (IPL) in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD).
This prospective randomized double-masked sham-controlled trial included 114 patients with MGD. Patients were randomized into the IPL or sham group. Either the IPL or sham procedure was performed on days 0, 15, and 45. Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), visual analog scale, visual acuity, tear breakup time, meibum quality and expressibility, meibography grade, ocular surface staining, tear film lipid layer thickness, tear osmolarity, Schirmer test, tear interleukin-1 receptor agonist, and interleukin-6 levels were examined on days 0, 15, and 45 and at months 3 and 6. Subgroup analysis according to stage and the patient’s compliance to conventional treatment were also analyzed. Any adverse events during the study were recorded. A multilevel mixed-effect linear regression model was used. P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
At 6 months, tear breakup time, meibum quality grades, expressibility grades, and OSDI were better in the IPL group (5.23 ± 2.91 vs. 3.11 ± 0.99 seconds, P < 0.001; 8.74 ± 4.74 vs. 13.19 ± 5.01, P < 0.001; 0.50 ± 0.67 vs. 1.12 ± 0.70, P < 0.001; 24.29 ± 16.92 vs. 32.71 ± 20.07, P < 0.05). OSDI, meibum quality, and expressibility in the IPL group began to improve at day 15 (P < 0.001), whereas the results in the sham group began to improve at day 45 (P < 0001). No adverse event occurred after IPL.
IPL is effective and safe for MGD treatment in all stages regardless of compliance.