Choroidal Neovascularization Secondary to Intense Pulsed Light Injury

Chang, Chih-Yao; Sheu, Shwu‐Jiuan

doi:10.1097/iop.0000000000001142

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… Chang et el. (2018) 15 The anterior segment was silent. During the fundus examination, a juxtafoveal creamy patch was observed in the right eye.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 22 Three patients reported that they directly looked at the IPL probe while it was fired up. 15 , 24 , 27 Eighteen patients (90%) received facial IPL treatment, and 17 of their procedures were performed in a periocular location. Of those reported laser parameters, the fluence used was in the range of 20–24 J/cm 2 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 18 articles [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] including 20 patients were identified in the literature, describing ocular complications following exposure to an IPL source (60%) or to a diode laser (40%) [Figure 1]. Most patients (95%) were female; their mean age was 40 (St. deviation 12).…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is It Possible for Light-Based Hair Removal Home Devices to Induce Ocular Damage? Systematic Review

Al muqarrab,

Alsuwaidan,

Al muqarrab

et al. 2023

CCID

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Light-based hair removal home devices emit intense pulse light (IPL) or Diode laser. While the Food and Drug Administration controls them in the US, Europe continues to classify them as cosmetic products. Emerging concerns are: what if an unprotected eye is inadvertently exposed to light emission? Or if the consumer tries to overcome the protective safety features? We performed this systematic review by searching the Medline, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases to investigate the ocular damage reported after exposure to IPL for hair removal. We could not identify any case reported following exposure to home devices; however, a total of 20 patients were identified with iris atrophy, anterior chamber inflammation, and/or retinal pigment epithelium damage following exposure to office IPL or Diode lights. 40% were not using any protective eyewear during the light procedure. The reported fluences were in the range of 20–24 J/cm 2 . Although the ocular damage was identified following office devices, the reported fluences were within the home device’s limits. For that, manufacturers should provide clear instructions on the package regarding the ocular hazards, the importance of using protective goggles, and a firm warning not to overcome the contact sensors. Home device-induced ocular damage is still a concern, perhaps under-reported.

show abstract

“… Chang et el. (2018) 15 The anterior segment was silent. During the fundus examination, a juxtafoveal creamy patch was observed in the right eye.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is It Possible for Light-Based Hair Removal Home Devices to Induce Ocular Damage? Systematic Review

Al muqarrab,

Alsuwaidan,

Al muqarrab

et al. 2023

CCID

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Few complications have been published. Rare cases of uveitis [ 33 ] and one case of choroidal neo-vascularization [ 34 ] have been reported. This shows the importance of wearing protective glasses during the procedure [ 35 ] and the need to strictly position the shots on the cheekbone under the lower eyelids.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A retrospective study of the efficacy of intense pulsed light delivered by the Lacrystim® for meibomian gland dysfunction therapy

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Meibomian gland dysfunction is the most common etiology of dry eye disease worldwide and intense pulsed light appears to be a promising treatment with encouraging results. Lacrystim® is a new IPL device (CE marking in 2019) and no studies have yet been published on it. We propose the first study on this device with an objective assessment of its efficacy and an extended follow-up over 6 months. Methods Patients presenting with a dry eye disease (DED) with stable mild to moderate MGD and having received Lacrystim® treatment between june 2019 and june 2020 were included. 3 IPL sessions were performed at D0, D15 and D45 with 4 shots per side at a fluence of 8 mJ/cm2. DED clinical evaluation was performed at D0, D15, D45, 3rd month and 6th month: Oxford scale and break up time, Schirmer test and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire. Lacrydiag® imaging device carried out an objective examination of tear film: interferometry, meibography, tear meniscus height and non-invasive break up time (NIBUT). The primary endpoint was the evolution in NIBUT between the first visit D0 and 3rd month. Data collection was done retrospectively. Statistical analysis was done using a linear mixed-effects model and a non-parametric linear mixed-effects model (R software). Results Forthy five consecutive patients were included. NIBUT significantly increased between D0 and 3rd month: mean difference of 1.63 seconds, IC95% [0.51; 2.62], (p = 0.002) with a prolonged effect at 6th month. OSDI and OXFORD scores and interferometry were also significantly improved at 3rd month and 6th month. There was no significant change in BUT, Schirmer test and tear meniscus height. No adverse event was noted. Conclusions IPL delivered by Lacrystim® appears effective and safe to treat MGD although a randomized controlled trial is needed to validate its results. Trial registration This work was approved by a local ethics committee “Terre d’éthique” (institutional review board number: IRBN672019/CHUSTE) and registered on the clinicaltrial.gov website (NCT04147962, 01/11/2019).

show abstract

“…Xu K et al [ 8 ] reported a 12-year-old boy and Tofolean IT et al [ 14 ] reported a 31-year-old woman whose BCVA improved to 20/20 after only 1 anti-VEGF injection while another 33-year-old patient [ 15 ] regained 20/20 after 3 intravitreal injections. Besides, the study groups of Tran K, [ 7 ] Forshaw TRJ, [ 16 ] Chang CY [ 17 ] and Veronese C [ 18 ] reported either complete resolution of CNV or visual improvement in young patients (aged between 12 and 26 years old). It appears that anti-VEGF treatment is quite useful for young patients who suffer from laser induced CNV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laser-induced choroidal neovascularization

Chen³

et al. 2021

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale: Laser induced maculopathy includes retinal photoreceptor disruption, macular hole, macular hemorrhage, and rarely choroidal neovascularization (CNV). Here we report a case of laser induced CNV that was treated by intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection and resulted in visual improvement and CNV resolution during 1-year follow up. In addition, the case of laser induced CNV treated with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections are reviewed for the first time in literature. Patient concerns: A 7-year-old boy presented to our department with blurred vision in his right eye for 2 months. The symptom immediately happened after the boy staring at the laser beam for a few seconds. Examination of ocular fundus with slit lamp showed yellowish lesion in macula in his right eye. Diagnoses: CNV was confirmed by fundus examinations, including color fundus photograph, spectral domain optical coherence tomography, fluorescein angiography, and spectral domain optical coherence tomography angiography. Interventions: After the diagnosis of laser induced CNV, intravitreal ranibizumab (LUCENTIS, NOVARTIS) injection was performed. Outcomes: After 1 injection of intravitreal ranibizumab, the best corrected visual acuity improved from 20/50 to 30/50 and CNV gradually regressed during 1-year follow up. Lessons: For young patients with laser induced CNV, intravitreal anti-VEGF injections may be helpful in visual improvement and CNV regression. Moreover, age seems to be a significant factor thus we propose that old animals may be more appropriate for laser induced CNV animal models of age-related macular degeneration.

show abstract

Choroidal Neovascularization Secondary to Intense Pulsed Light Injury

Cited by 5 publications

References 12 publications

Is It Possible for Light-Based Hair Removal Home Devices to Induce Ocular Damage? Systematic Review

Is It Possible for Light-Based Hair Removal Home Devices to Induce Ocular Damage? Systematic Review

A retrospective study of the efficacy of intense pulsed light delivered by the Lacrystim® for meibomian gland dysfunction therapy

Laser-induced choroidal neovascularization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About