Macular Hole Formation Associated With Intense Pulsed Light Therapy

Maganti, Nenita; Kalbag, Neil; Gill, Manjot K.

doi:10.1097/icb.0000000000000947

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… 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%

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

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Laser operators should report novel adverse events in the literature and share them with the medical community. 107 -139…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse Events of Light-Assisted Hair Removal: An Updated Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background With light-assisted hair removal becoming widely used, reports of adverse effects are increasing. Objective To review all the reported optical incidents and cutaneous complications of laser or intense pulse light-assisted hair removal. Methods A PubMed database systematic search was performed to identify studies reporting such adverse events before July 2022 using the Mesh terms “adverse effects” AND “hair removal” AND (“laser” OR “intense pulse light”). Results Altogether, 358 references were identified. After excluding duplicates, unrelated articles, guidelines, and conference abstracts, then adding references from studies bibliography, 104 publications were included. Ocular incidents consisted of anterior uveitis, iritis and iris atrophy, pupillary distortion, posterior synechiae, anterior chamber pigment, and cataracts in the anterior subcapsular region. Cutaneous complications consisted of pain, burns, folliculitis, leukotrichia, paradoxical hypertrichosis, pigmentary changes, changes in nevi, pili bigemini, herpes infection, hyperhidrosis, bromhidrosis, Fox-Fordyce disease, and frostbite from the cooling system. They were mostly correlated to skin type and body area as well as to light device and set parameters. Intense pulse light devices were found to be less painful than alexandrite laser, yet more painful than diode laser; Nd:YAG laser had the highest pain score. Conclusion Optical incidents can be systematically avoided. Cutaneous complications are usually related to professional errors and patient characteristics. Better knowledge of laser physics and adequate training of laser operators are key recommendations to avoid undesirable side effects. Safety recommendations help prevent most of the reported complications.

show abstract

“…In addition, the application of IPL is generally made below the lower eyelid, to reduce the risk of light penetration through the lid with subsequent absorption by ocular tissues. While rare, IPL can cause ocular inflammation [22,23] and without the proper safety precautions can cause damage to ocular structures that absorb light, such as the iris [24] and the retina [25]. With regard to efficacy, a recent Cochrane review of the effects of IPL suggests results in early studies may have overstated the potential benefits [26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low Level Light Therapy as an Adjunct Treatment for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction

Stonecipher¹,

Komm²,

R³

2020

Act Sci Oph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Importance: This study highlights the adjunctive value of low-level light therapy (LLLT) in the management of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Background: To evaluate the effects of LLLT treatment on clinical measures of dry eye related to MGD in patients unresponsive to previous therapies. Design: A retrospective chart review of patients treated at one site. Participants: Fifty eyes of 25 treated patients who were documented treatment failures with previous pharmaceuticals and/or devices were evaluated. Methods: LLLT treatment consisted of 3 treatments in one week, with adjunct use of a topical steroid/antibiotic combination. The post-treatment diagnostic measures had to have been made 3 to 5 weeks after the last LLLT treatment. Main Outcome Measures: Results included changes in the graded MGD score (grading scale 0-4), tear breakup time (TBUT), an Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire score and lissamine green (LG) staining. Results: Significant improvements in the mean OSDI score (p = 0.002), MGD grading (p < 0.001), TBUT (p < 0.001) and both nasal and temporal LG staining (p < 0.02) were observed after treatment. An MGD grade reduction of 1 or more was observed in 72% of eyes (36/50), and 2 or more in 32% of eyes (16/50). There were no ocular or facial adverse events or side effects related to the treatment. Conclusion: The application of LLLT over a short series of sessions for the treatment of MGD appeared to be beneficial in the majority of patients who had failed to improve with alternative pharmaceutical and device interventions.

show abstract

Macular Hole Formation Associated With Intense Pulsed Light Therapy

Abstract: Ocular complications secondary to cosmetic procedures have been described. We report the first case of a macular hole as a complication of intense pulsed light therapy due to possible thermal injury with ocular coherence tomography findings.

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 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

Adverse Events of Light-Assisted Hair Removal: An Updated Review

Low Level Light Therapy as an Adjunct Treatment for Meibomian Gland Dysfunction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About