Send to

Choose Destination
Optom Vis Sci. 2012 Jul;89(7):E1035-41. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31825c3479.

A comparison of an eyelid-warming device to traditional compress therapy.

Author information

Dr. Heiko Pult-Optometry & Vision Research, Weinheim, Germany.



To assess the warming and humidifying effect and ocular safety of the Blephasteam® eyelid-warming device vs. warm and moist compresses in healthy volunteers.


Twenty subjects (8 females, 12 males; mean age 39.2 years) were included in the study. Temperature and relative humidity were measured over a period of 10 min at the lower eyelid margin of one randomly selected eye during application of the Blephasteam device and, 1 h later, during application of warm compresses (in a randomized order). Ocular signs and visual acuity were assessed before and after each application.


The mean duration of warming (temperature ≥38°C) was significantly longer with Blephasteam than with compresses (7.5 vs. 1.0 min; p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between treatments in the duration of 100% relative humidity. Compared with pretreatment values, visual acuity significantly improved after Blephasteam treatment (p < 0.05) but significantly decreased after treatment with compresses (p < 0.05). Limbal redness, eyelid redness, and corneal staining scores all improved significantly after Blephasteam treatment (p < 0.05 for all). Ocular signs did not change after compress treatment except conjunctival redness, which was significantly increased (p = 0.01 vs. pretreatment).


The Blephasteam eyelid-warming device appeared to provide more effective warming than warm and moist compresses in a group of healthy volunteers. Visual acuity, limbal redness, and eyelid redness were improved after Blephasteam use but not after treatment with compresses.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center