Aim of the study: To study the Improvement after IPL treatment in meibomian gland dysfunction patients. 

Method: In this prospective study, 60 patients with MGD were examined before IPL treatment at Dr. Anil Kulkarni Eye Hospital, Miraj from Sep.2021 to March 2022. Patients are more than or equal to 15 years and lower than or equal to 75 years of age both (male and female), All patients selected had a diagnosis of MGD of poor quality of secretion whose MGD degree is more than or equal to degree 2 level and facing symptoms of DED were included in our study. The ophthalmological record included objective Schirmer’s test and meibography. In this study, we assess the safety and efficacy of IPL treatment in MGD patients using the device EYE-LIGHT, the device used in the current clinical practice degree level and Dry eye severity level are acquired automatically by the Me-check screening device. Patient's symptom responses were noted in three categories according to questioner OSDI-6, good, better, and no response to treatment.  

Result: The final analysis was performed on 120 eyes. The mean age of patients included in the study was 42.46 years (range 40-45 years). Most patients were female about 57% (34 out of 60). In this study, we assess the improvement after IPL treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). The results are before and after IPL treatment. The reported outcome noted by the patient was good in 30 patients (50%), better in 13 patients (21.66%), and no response in 17 patients (28.33%). Satisfactory significant improvements were found in the symptoms of MGD. The positive change in objective clinical examination findings and subjective scoring data. The results of this research indicate the importance of IPL treatment and help to relieve the symptoms of moderate to severe dry eye disease (DED). 

Conclusion: IPL plays a valuable role in DED. And the software using Eye-light is fully automated and upgradeable. No adverse effects after the IPL treatment, along with significant improvement in the symptoms. The reported outcomes by the patients were good 50%, better 21.66%, and no response 28.33% were seen as satisfied after treatment could be considered safe, highly accepted among patients, and could be applied in clinical settings