Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New study(ies) on Blephasteam goggles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New study(ies) on Blephasteam goggles

    August 2011: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...174.x/abstract

    Results Thirty patients (16 women, 14 men), mean age 48 ± 22 years (4 to 82 years) were included. After 3 weeks of treatment, mean global visual analogic scale symptom score decreased by 15.2 ± 22 mm (range, +32 to -57 mm on a 100 mm scale)(p=0.004). Mean composite blepharitis score decreased by -3.5 points on the worst eye (range, +1 to -10 on a 20 points scale)(p<0,001). No change was observed for the other parameters among which BUT, IOP and tear osmolarity. Improvement rated by the patient was important in 48 % of cases, moderate in 36% and fair in 16%.

    Conclusion Blephasteam® wet chamber warming goggles are a promising alternative to classical lid hygiene techniques. A multicenter extended study is ongoing.
    May 2011: http://www.abstractsonline.com/plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?mID=2684&sKey=1d5ea741-a891-486f-82cb-980efaad02bc&cKey=5295ba8b-1689-44d2-a13a-952e264709d2&mKey={6F224A2D-AF6A-4533-8BBB-6A8D7B26EDB3}

    Results: Eleven patients (8 women, 3 men), mean age 50 ± 16 years (24 to 70 years) were included at Bichat Hospital. After 3 weeks of treatment, mean global visual analogic scale symptom score and composite symptom score decreased by -18 mm (range, +32 to -57 mm on a 100 mm scale) and -4 points (range, +1 to -13 on a 18 points scale), respectively. Mean composite blepharitis score decreased by -3 points (range, +2 to -6 on a 20 points scale). No change was observed for the other parameters. Patient reported improvement was important in 6 cases, moderate in 2 and fair in 3.
    Conclusions: Blephasteam® wet chamber warming goggles are a promising alternative to classical lid hygiene techniques. A multicenter study is ongoing.
    looks to be the same but less patients (maybe from another center).

    Anyway, has anyone tried this thing? Quite expensive but of course if it does a good job that doesn't matter to many.

    I think the positive thing about something like this is that your eyes are open. Not because you can do other things at the same time but because there's a higher chance your eyelids get to the degree to melt hardened oil.
    Last edited by andreas2; 01-Sep-2011, 00:35.

  • #2
    sorry. I put this in the wrong section. if it could be moved to the other open forum it would be great.

    Comment


    • #3
      this photo is from their website. I thought the average melting point for us mgd:ers is 40c? on the photo it says 35c.



      what worries me about this device is that it just makes the eyes feel good because your eyes are in that moist for 2x10 mins a day, but it doesn't actually melt any meibum.

      Comment


      • #4
        I asked dry-eyes.co.uk about customer feedback of the device and they said:

        The feedback is generally positive, the worst being that they are no better than cheaper alternative and the best being that it has revolutionised people's lives.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks, andreas2. I'd already decided to test drive Blephasteam for LM's chronic MGD when she's not inflamed - could be good while she's on the computer - they're £204 in UK Butterflies Healthcare.

          Anyone managed to get them cheaper worldwide?
          Paediatric ocular rosacea ~ primum non nocere

          Comment


          • #6
            Nope. It costs pretty much the same at spectrum-thea.co.uk. I have mailed Blephasteam and asked if I can buy one from them to here in Sweden and what it would cost. Besides that the site you posted seems to be the only place.

            A couple of older studies:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15332095

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17486027

            both of them are using blephasteam even though it doesn't say so.

            Comment


            • #7
              More interesting study. Seems like all of them did their job.

              COMPARISON OF THREE CONTEMPORARY THERAPIES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF MEIBOMIAN GLAND DYSFUNCTION

              Objective:

              Despite its high prevalence and association with chronic irritation symptoms, meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) remains relatively unsuccessfully managed in clinical practice. This prospective, randomised, investigator-masked study compared the short-term effects of three contemporary therapies; a latent heat device (LHD) (Blephasteam®), a warm compress treatment (WCT) (MGDRx EyeBag) and a phospholipid liposomal spray (PLS) (TearsAgain™), on tear film and ocular surface characteristics in patients with and without MGD.

              Methods:

              In a randomised manner, one of the three treatments was administered to 21 participants without MGD, 23 with mild MGD, 27 with moderate MGD and 10 participants with severe MGD. Outcome measures compared before and after treatment included non-invasive tear film stability (NIBUT), lipid layer thickness (LLT), high and low contrast glare acuity (GA), tear meniscus height (TMH), tear evaporation rate (TER) and temperature variation factor (TVF).

              Results:

              Data analysis included generalised linear mixed models, with time as a repeated measure and participant as a random effect. No statistically significant effect on TER, TMH, GA, or TVF was observed following single application of any of the treatments, in any of the groups (p>0.05). However, both LLT (p=0.012) and NIBUT (p=0.047) were found to improve significantly in all MGD groups (mild, moderate and severe) but not in the control group, with all three treatments. No significant difference between treatment-type was observed.

              Conclusion:

              A single application of a LHD, WCT or PLS significantly improved tear film lipid layer and stability without affecting vision. No significant difference between the treatments, nor correlation with MGD severity, was observed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Andreas2, thanks so much, you are fantastic on the research.

                We have MGDRx Eyebag with flaxseeds in it, which we like, although we use paper tissue between warm mask and eyes because LM is very bacterial. Re last study, I'm hoping for cumulative improvement - tear film, then surface and tearing reflex - by relieving MGD.

                I'm going to get the Blephasteam at £204, I don't see how it could be cheaper at this stage of production. I'll let you know if we like it. Thanks again.
                Paediatric ocular rosacea ~ primum non nocere

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thanks.

                  There are a few studies in this pdf: http://www.tearfilm.org/pdfs/TFOS_Abstracts.pdf (just search for blephasteam). Of course these kind of studies aren't always the most reliable. My biggest fear with the device is that the heat is too low to melt the obstructions. But the people who made the device probably know more than me so.

                  I'm probably also gonna buy it.

                  Worst case it doesn't work for me but 10 min in warm moist air once in a while is good for the eyes.
                  Good case it works as well as more popular warm compress techniques (no pressure on cornea is a plus in this case).
                  Best case it woks better.

                  Good luck.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hello,

                    While Blephasteam goggles could help improve the meibomian gland lipid flow by it's liquefaction, they may not completely substitute the lid hygiene regimen, as the study claims. Oftentimes and especially in the early stages of treating meibomian gland dysfunction, the orifices of the meibomian glands are clogged by hardened oil mixed with particles of dust and microscopic skin flakes from the eyelids. These need to me not only softened (either by warm compresses or Blephasteam) but also washed out from the eye to prevent them from going into the eye, becoming part of your tear film and further adding to the foreign body sensations. I believe Blephasteam is more of a substitute for warm compresses to help melt the oil and improves meibomian gland secretions but is not a complete substitute to the lid hygiene that helps remove the dirt particles that adhere to the openings of the meibomian glands throuout the day while the eyes are open.

                    Sincerely,
                    Irina Ganelis, M.D.

                    http://LosAngelesEyeInstitute.com/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks for your response Irina.

                      Have you had any experience with it with patients? If so do you think it's a viable alternative to other types of warm compresses?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        For anyone in New Zealand:

                        http://www.facebook.com/DrMalcolmMcKellar

                        Glasshouses for eyes? Blephasteam is a great new treatment for patients who have dry eyes due to problems with the oil layer in their tears. We are happy to loan patients one of our Blephasteam devices so you can 'try before you buy'.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Dear Andreas2,

                          Since it is a pretty recent product on the market, I haven't yet had a patient who purchased it and would be able to provide feedback.

                          The goggles could be a viable alternative to other ypes of warm compresses but a larger study is needed to prove its effectiveness. The studies published today are small and, given that normally the placebo effect accounts for 30% improvement and the subjective effects are difficult to quantify, the percentage of improvement is not very much higher than 30%.

                          Just as everyone's eyes are different and I tailor treatments to each individual, these goggles could be more beneficial in certain groups of people:
                          - people with arthritis who have difficulty or pain in their hands to perform regular lid hygiene regimen
                          - younger people more than older people since secretions are thinner in young compared to older ones
                          - people after meibomian gland wash out procedure to maintain gland flow

                          In general younger people would benefit more, I believe, since from my personal experience I observe the secretions from meibomian glands in older patients after emibomian gland wash out are thicker, having some consistency of concretions because of longer periods of time clogging the glands.

                          I will be awaiting larger studies on these subgroups.

                          Hope it helps.

                          Sincerely, Irina Ganelis, M.D.

                          http://LosAngelesEyeInstitute.com

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X