Skip to content

Test of the effect of Pulsed Light in the treatment of Dry eye

Evaluation of the effectiveness of Pulsed Light in the treatment of Evaporative dry eye

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
REBEC
Registry ID
RBR-9m3jy47
Enrollment
Unknown
Registered
2021-06-22
Start date
2019-03-28
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-10-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Xerophthalmia

Interventions

Two groups will be randomly divided, of which one group with 11 people will receive an application of intense pulsed light in addition to the standard treatment, already established in the literature,

Sponsors

Bernardo Reichert
Lead Sponsor
Hospital de Olhos do Paraná
Collaborator

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: To be literate (to be able to read and sign the informed consent form); to be of legal age; to be able to follow the treatment schedule and to follow their requirements; to have a BUT equal to or less than 7.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Those who did not completed all treatment; they did not want to participate in the study anymore; they had an infection during treatment.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The tear osmolarity values of each patient were compared before and after the proposed treatment. Similar results were expected in both of the groups. The IPLexMG group alone had its average osmolarity ranging from 334.6 [318-357] to 330.7 [307-371], demonstrating that after three sessions the osmolarity decreased by an average of 3.9 mOsm. A similar efficacy can be seen when we analyze the patients in the IPL group. This group showed an improvement of 337.5 [303-376] to 323.2 [307-341], a decrease of 14.3 mOsm. The comparison between both groups showed no significant difference (p equal to 0.496). This demonstrate the primary outcome.;As a primary outcome, there was an improvement in the BUT values, from mean 3.4 [0-7] to 6.3 [2-11] in the IPL/MGX group and from 3.7 [2-5] to 6.3 [4 -10] in the IPL group (p equal to 0.0064 and 0.025 respectively). The comparison between the groups showed no statistical significance between the two proposed treatments (p equal to 0.955).

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
When analyzed the values of the Schirmer test the same can be noticed. Improvement of the mean in the IPLexMG treatment from 9.7 [2-25] to 13.1 [0-35] (p equal to 0.291) and in the IPL treatment from 12.1 [4-30] to 17.1 [4-30 ] (p equal to 0.139). The two treatments also have similar effectivness (p equal to 0.681). This demonstrate the secondary outcome;Regarding the OSDI questionnaire , it can be noticed a significant drop in its severity score, ranging from 43.2 to 19.4 in the IPLexMG group (p equal to 0.0008) and from 33.5 to 10.45 in the IPL group (p equal to 0.066). There was no statistical significance between both groups (p equal to 0.866). Demonstrating a secondary outcome.

Countries

Brazil

Contacts

Public ContactLuciane;Thiago Antonio Moreira;de Andrade

;

moreira_luciane@hotmail.com;thiago.moretti@fho.edu.br+55-41-988464964;(19) 3543-1400

Outcome results

None listed

Source: REBEC (via WHO ICTRP)