Michael T M Wang1, Akilesh Gokul1, Jennifer P Craig2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, New Zealand National Eye Centre, The University of Auckland, New Zealand. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, New Zealand National Eye Centre, The University of Auckland, New Zealand. Electronic address: jp.craig@auckland.ac.nz.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare temperature profile characteristics (on and off eye) of two patient-applied heat therapies for meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD): an eye mask containing disposable warming units (EyeGiene(®)) and a microwave-heated flaxseed eye bag(®) (MGDRx EyeBag(®)). METHODS: In vitro evaluation: surface temperature profiles of activated eye masks and heated eye bags(®) (both n=10), were tracked every 10s until return to ambient temperature. Heat-transfer assessment: outer and inner eyelid temperature profiles throughout the eye mask and eye bag(®) treatment application period (10min) were investigated in triplicate. The devices were applied for 12 different time intervals in a randomised order, with a cool-down period in between to ensure ocular temperatures returned to baseline. Temperature measurements were taken before and immediately after each application. RESULTS: In vitro evaluation: on profile, the eye bag(®) surface temperature peaked earlier (0±0 s vs. 100±20 s, p<0.001), cooled more slowly and displayed less variability than the eye mask (all p<0.05). Heat-transfer assessment: the eye bag(®) effected higher peak inner eyelid temperatures (38.1±0.4°C vs. 37.4±0.2°C, p=0.04), as well as larger inner eyelid temperature increases over the first 2 min, and between 9 and 10 min (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The eye bag(®) surface temperature profile displayed greater uniformity and slower cooling than the eye mask, and was demonstrated to be significantly more effective in raising ocular temperatures than the eye mask, both statistically and clinically. This has implications for MGD treatment, where the melting points of meibomian secretions are likely to be higher with increasing disease severity.
PURPOSE: To compare temperature profile characteristics (on and off eye) of two patient-applied heat therapies for meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD): an eye mask containing disposable warming units (EyeGiene(®)) and a microwave-heated flaxseed eye bag(®) (MGDRx EyeBag(®)). METHODS: In vitro evaluation: surface temperature profiles of activated eye masks and heated eye bags(®) (both n=10), were tracked every 10s until return to ambient temperature. Heat-transfer assessment: outer and inner eyelid temperature profiles throughout the eye mask and eye bag(®) treatment application period (10min) were investigated in triplicate. The devices were applied for 12 different time intervals in a randomised order, with a cool-down period in between to ensure ocular temperatures returned to baseline. Temperature measurements were taken before and immediately after each application. RESULTS: In vitro evaluation: on profile, the eye bag(®) surface temperature peaked earlier (0±0 s vs. 100±20 s, p<0.001), cooled more slowly and displayed less variability than the eye mask (all p<0.05). Heat-transfer assessment: the eye bag(®) effected higher peak inner eyelid temperatures (38.1±0.4°C vs. 37.4±0.2°C, p=0.04), as well as larger inner eyelid temperature increases over the first 2 min, and between 9 and 10 min (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The eye bag(®) surface temperature profile displayed greater uniformity and slower cooling than the eye mask, and was demonstrated to be significantly more effective in raising ocular temperatures than the eye mask, both statistically and clinically. This has implications for MGD treatment, where the melting points of meibomian secretions are likely to be higher with increasing disease severity.