Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Outcomes of low-level light therapy before and after cataract surgery for the prophylaxis of postoperative dry eye: a prospective randomised double-masked controlled clinical trial
  1. Giuseppe Giannaccare1,2,
  2. Costanza Rossi1,
  3. Massimiliano Borselli1,
  4. Giovanna Carnovale Scalzo1,
  5. Giovanni Scalia1,
  6. Rocco Pietropaolo1,
  7. Benedetta Fratto1,
  8. Marco Pellegrini3,4,
  9. Angeli Christy Yu3,4,
  10. Vincenzo Scorcia1
  1. 1 Department of Ophthalmology, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy
  2. 2 Eye Clinic, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
  3. 3 Department of Ophthalmology, Villa Igea Hospital, Forlì, Italy
  4. 4 Department of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Dr Giuseppe Giannaccare, Ophthalmology, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Calabria, Italy; giuseppe.giannaccare{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background Despite increasing evidence shows that optimising ocular surface before cataract surgery is fundamental in patients with pre-existing dry eye disease (DED) to achieve the desired postoperative outcomes, the prophylactic treatment of healthy patients undergoing surgery aiming at preventing iatrogenic DED is worth investigating.

Methods This was a prospective, interventional, randomised, controlled, double-masked clinical trial. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either low-level light therapy (LLLT) or sham treatment (LLLT with a power output <30%). Patients underwent two treatment sessions: 7±2 days before cataract surgery (T0) and 7±2 days after (T1). Outcome measures evaluated 30±4 days after surgery (T2) included Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire, non-invasive break-up time (NIBUT), tear meniscus height, meibomian gland loss (MGL) and redness score.

Results Out of 153 patients randomised to receive LLLT (n=73) or sham treatment (n=80), 131 (70 men, 61 women, mean age 73.53±7.29 years) completed regularly the study. Patients treated with LLLT had significantly lower OSDI scores compared with controls at T1 and T2 (respectively, 7.2±8.8 vs 14.8±13.0 and 9.0±9.0 vs 18.2±17.9; both p<0.001), higher NIBUT values at T2 (12.5±6.6 vs 9.0±7.8; p=0.007) and lower MGL Meiboscore values at T1 (1.59±0.70 vs 1.26±0.69; p=0.008). Unlike controls, patients treated with LLLT had significantly lower OSDI scores and higher NIBUT values at T2 compared with T0 (respectively, 9.0±9.0 vs 21.2±16.1; p<0.001 and 12.5±6.6 vs 9.7±7.2; p=0.007).

Conclusion Two sessions of LLLT performed before and after cataract surgery were effective in ameliorating tear film stability and ocular discomfort symptoms.

Trial registration number NCT05754437.

  • ocular surface
  • treatment surgery
  • treatment other
  • clinical trial
  • tears

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. The dataset used and analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. The dataset used and analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors GG, CR, MB, GCS, RP and VS had substantial contribution to the conception and design of the study. GG, CR, MB, GS, GCS and BF had substantial contribution to the acquisition and collection of data. RP, MP, BF, GS and ACY contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data. GG, CR, MB, GS, MP, VS and ACY contributed to the drafting of the manuscript. GG, MP, VS, RP, GCS, BF and ACY contributed to the approval of the version of the manuscript to be published. GG is guarantor of this work.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Highlights from this issue
    Frank Larkin