When heat misses the mark: Why warm compresses don’t always work

Warm compresses have long been considered foundational therapy in the management of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) and, by extension, evaporative dry eye disease (DED).¹ They are commonly recommended alongside over-the-counter lubricants and eyelid hygiene products as first-line therapy.² The rationale is straightforward: warm compresses are intended to increase eyelid and meibomian gland temperature, liquefy altered meibum, promote gland expression and improve tear film stability.³

However, as our understanding of DED has evolved, so should our therapeutic precision. Not all dry eye is caused by MGD, not all MGD is obstructive and not all obstructive MGD responds to heat. Warm compresses are frequently recommended indiscriminately, often without consideration of disease phenotype, inflammatory status or realistic thermal limitations.

This article examines the historical rationale for warm compress therapy, reviews its true physiologic mechanisms and explores clinical scenarios in which warm compresses may be ineffective or even inappropriate. Ultimately, it argues for a more selective, mechanism-driven approach to therapy that respects ocular pathophys­iology and patient time.

A brief history of warm compresses in medicine and eye care

The therapeutic use of heat predates modern medicine and has been
employed for millennia to treat inflammatory and obstructive conditions. In Hippocratic medicine (circa 400 BC), heat was recommended to “soften” swellings and promote resolution of retained mate­rial.⁴ Galen later expanded
 on this principle, describing heat as a means of facilitating flow and evacuation of pathologic humours.⁵

By the 18th and 19th centuries, warm fomentations were widely described in medical and surgical texts for the treatment of abscesses, glandular obstruction and inflammatory processes.⁶ In eye care, heat application became a standard recommendation for eyelid conditions such as hordeola and chalazia long before the concept of MGD existed.⁷

One of the earliest explicit ophthalmic references appears in William Mackenzie’s A Practical Treatise on the Diseases of the Eye (1855), in which warm applications were recom­mended to encourage drainage from obstructed meibomian follicles.⁷ This empiric practice was later echoed by Ernst Fuchs in his 1901 Text-Book of Ophthalmology, which described heat as beneficial for internal hordeola and eyelid gland obstruction.⁸

Importantly, these early recommendations were condition specific, targeting focal obstruction or suppuration. The extrapolation of warm compresses as a universal dry eye therapy occurred much later, paralleling the recognition of MGD as a major contributor to evaporative dry eye.

Mechanisms of warm compresses therapy

Healthy human meibum has a melting point near 90 to 93 °F (32-34 °C), allowing it to remain fluid at physiologic eyelid temperatures.⁹ In MGD, however, compositional changes, including increased saturated lipids and keratin contamination, raise the melting point, resulting in thickened, stagnant secretions.⁹

Warm compresses are intended to elevate eyelid and meibomian gland temperature sufficiently to exceed this elevated melting point, thereby reducing meibum viscosity and promoting secretion. Data from experimental and clinical studies demonstrate that meaningful improvement in meibomian gland secretion requires gland temperatures of at least 104 to 106 °F (40-41 °C).¹⁰ As a result, most therapeutic warm compress protocols aim to raise lid temperature into the 104 to 113 °F (40-45 °C) range.

However, only a fraction of the externally applied heat reaches the meibomian glands, and eyelid skin can tolerate only a narrow temperature range. Human skin generally tolerates therapeutic warmth up to 109 to 111 °F (43-44 °C), with pain perception occurring near this range and burn risk increasing above 113 °F (45 °C).¹¹ These constraints significantly limit the ability of warm compresses to melt highly altered meibum.

Heat is not always helpful

In most areas of medicine, heat is not reflexively applied to all conditions; rather, heat or cold compresses are selected based on the underlying pathology—cold is typically recommended to reduce swelling, inflammation and pain in acute injuries, whereas heat is used later for chronic stiffness and muscle relaxation.^12-14 Yet in dry eye care, warm compresses are often prescribed as a foundational therapy for nearly all patients, frequently without consideration of the patient’s inflammatory status, whether the condition is acute or chronic, the underlying subtype of dry eye (e.g., aqueous deficient versus evaporative), the quality of the meibum, the presence or absence of meibomian glands or the potential for heat to exacerbate eyelid inflammation. This assumption becomes particularly problematic in certain patient populations.

Ocular rosacea

Ocular rosacea is characterized by chronic eyelid inflammation, superficial telangiectatic blood vessels and dysregulated vascular responses. These patients often have elevated baseline eyelid temperatures and increased inflammatory signaling.¹⁵ Dilated vessels may compress adjacent meibomian glands, contributing to dysfunction, whereas increased warmth may alter the eyelid microbiome and exacerbate inflammation.^16,17

In such cases, adding heat to an already inflamed, vasodilated system may offer little benefit and worsen symptoms. At the University of Colorado (UC)Health Sue Anschutz-Rodgers Eye Center at UC Anschutz, many patients with ocular rosacea report no improvement or subjective worsening with warm compresses. For these individuals, alternative approaches, including anti-inflammatory therapy or even cool compresses, may be more appropriate.

Skin sensitivity or dermatitis

Beyond ocular rosacea, patients with eczema, atopic eyelid dermatitis or contact dermatitis may experience exacerbation with thermal therapy. Applying heat to inflamed or compromised skin can increase erythema, itching and discomfort, further limiting the tolerability and utility of warm compresses in these populations.^18,19

Neuropathic or neurosensory dry eye

Some patients’ dry eye symptoms are primarily driven by neurosensory dysfunction rather than classic tearfilm or lipid abnormalities. In these cases, warm compresses provide no mechanism to mitigate nerve hyperexcitability, abnormal trigeminal nerve sensation or ocular surface–derived neuropathic pain. In fact, some patients exhibit heat hyperalgesia, in which the application of warmth can exacerbate ocular discomfort.²⁰

Active inflammation

In eyes with acute eyelid or ocular surface inflammation—whether from blepharitis flares, conjunctivitis or postoperative inflammation—it is conceivable that heat application may exacerbate inflammatory signaling, promote vasodilation and increase patient discomfort.^21,22 Although warm compresses can improve gland secretion in chronic obstructive MGD, they do not directly address acute inflammatory cascades and may worsen signs and symptoms when inflammation is uncontrolled.

Taken together, these scenarios illustrate that warm compress therapy is not universally appropriate. Patient selection should consider MGD subtype, skin health, neurosensory contribution and inflammatory status. Blanket recommendations for warm compresses risk patient frustration, inefficiency and mistargeted treatment.

Hyperkeratinization and the limits of thermal therapy

If not the primary driver, hyperkeratinization is a major contributor to MGD.²³ Keratinization affects meibomian glands in multiple ways. Keratin can physically obstruct gland orifices, preventing secretion. Additionally, keratin proteins can aggregate within the meibum itself through disulfide bond formation, creating dense keratin-lipid complexes that thicken secretions and impair flow.²⁴

From a dermatologic and sebaceous gland perspective, MGD resembles other sebaceous gland disorders marked by disrupted keratinization and outflow obstruction.²³ In advanced disease, these changes can dramatically elevate the meibum melting point—often well beyond 113 °F (45 °C)—far exceeding what can be safely achieved with external heat application.^23,25

To better understand this limitation, consider the analogy of cooking a steak on a grill. When cooking a steak to an internal temperature of approximately 130 to 150 °F, the grill is typically heated to 400 to 450 °F, and the steak is left on the grill for 6 to 15 minutes, depending on thickness. Even with these extreme external temperatures, the internal temperature of the steak rises slowly, nowhere near the temperature of the grill itself.

The same thermodynamic principles apply to warm compress therapy. Although a warm compress may be 105 to 113 °F (40-45 °C) at the skin surface, only a fraction of that heat is transferred to the deeper meibomian glands. Furthermore, unlike a grill, warm compresses are limited by what periocular skin can safely tolerate, typically no more than 109 to 113 °F (43-45 °C) for sustained therapeutic exposure.¹¹ As a result, even prolonged and compliant warm compress use may fail to raise intraglandular temperatures sufficiently to melt highly keratinized or inspissated meibum. For example, disulfide bonds between keratin proteins, one of the molecular drivers of meibum thickening, require temperatures on the order of approximately 293 °F (145 °C) to break, far exceeding what can be achieved with safe external heat application.²³

In such cases, warm compresses are physiologically incapable of melting the obstructive material, regardless of patient adherence or device quality. For warm compress therapy to succeed, the melting point of meibum must exceed the temperature achievable by normal eyelid physiology yet remain below the upper limits of safely applied external heat. This reality underscores the narrow therapeutic window in which warm compresses can be effective and highlights the importance of identifying when alternative, nonthermal treatment strategies are warranted.

When meibum is already fluid, or absent

At the opposite end of the spectrum are patients with dry eye symptoms who demonstrate normal or near-normal meibum quality. Others exhibit substantial meibomian gland atrophy yet retain a small number of functioning glands capable of producing clear, fluid secretions. In such cases, it is unclear how warm compress therapy would provide meaningful benefit.

Moreover, I have encountered numerous patients who were advised to use warm compresses despite subsequent meibography in our clinic demonstrating complete (100%) meibomian gland atrophy. In these situations, what therapeutic effect can warm compresses realistically achieve?

In these patients, the mechanism by which warm compresses would improve symptoms is unclear. Warm compresses do not increase aqueous tear production, do not address neurosensory abnormalities and do not treat inflammatory dry eye independent of MGD. There is no evidence that warm compresses benefit pure aqueous-
deficient dry eye.^26,27 In such cases, warm compresses risk becoming a ritual rather than a rational therapy.

Warm compresses treat MGD—not dry eye

Warm compresses are a treatment for certain obstructive MGD cases, not a treatment for DED as a whole. Not all dry eye is caused by MGD, and not all MGD will respond to thermal therapy.

The Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society Dry Eye Workshop III Management and Therapy Report provides an evidence-based, mechanism-driven framework for DED treatment and identifies MGD as a primary contributor to evaporative DED.² It states that MGD is typically treated with warm compresses and related eyelid-warming approaches, alongside other in-office and adjunctive therapies, whereas other etiological drivers of DED (such as aqueous deficiency and inflammatory immune-mediated disease) may require distinct treatments, including anti-inflammatory agents and tear substitutes tailored to those mechanisms.² Overgeneralizing warm compress therapy risks mistargeted treatment, inefficiency and patient frustration.

Respecting time

Time is a valuable and finite resource for patients. Recommending 10 to 15 minutes of daily warm compress therapy without clear physiologic justification imposes a significant burden on a person’s life. For patients unlikely to benefit, discontinuing ineffective warm compress use can improve adherence to other therapies that actually address their disease, and give patients back time that meaningfully impacts quality of life.

Conclusion

Warm compresses have an important, but limited, role in dry eye care. They are best viewed as a targeted therapy for select patients with obstruc­tive MGD characterized by moderately elevated meibum melting points and minimal inflammatory eyelid disease.

As our understanding of MGD as a keratinization-driven sebaceous gland disorder deepens, it is increasingly evident that warm compress therapy may be sufficient as monotherapy in select patients, useful as an adjunct in others, and entirely inappropriate for some. Precision, not tradition, should guide modern dry eye and MGD management.

References

1. Jones L, Downie LE, Korb D, et al. TFOS DEWS II management and therapy report. Ocul Surf. 2017;15(3):575-628. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.006

2. Jones L, Craig JP, Markoulli M, et al. TFOS DEWS III: management and therapy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2025;279:289-386. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2025.05.039

3. Geerling G, Tauber J, Baudouin C, et al. The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: report of the subcommittee on management and treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(4):2050-2064. doi:10.1167/iovs.10-6997g

4. Johnson W. The Anatriptic Art: A History of the Art Termed Anatripsis by Hippocrates, Tripsis by Galen, Frictio by Celsus, Manipulation by Beveridge, and Medical Rubbing in Ordinary Language, From the Earliest Times to the Present Day; Followed by an Account of Its Virtues in the Cure of Disease and Maintenance of Health, With Illustrative Cases. Simpkin, Marshall, & Co; 1866.

5. Stelmack RM, Stalikas A. Galen and the humour theory of temperament. Pers Individ Dif. 1991;12(3):255-263. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90111-N

6. Shah JB. The history of wound care. J Am Col Certif Wound Spec. 2011;3(3):65-66. doi:10.1016/j.jcws.2012.04.002

7. Mackenzie W, Hewson A, Jones TW. A Practical Treatise on the Diseases of the Eye. Blanchard and Lea; 1855.

8. Fuchs E, Duane A. Text-book of Ophthalmology. JB Lippincott; 1901.

9. Borchman D, Foulks GN, Yappert MC, et al. Human meibum lipid conformation and thermodynamic changes with meibomian-gland dysfunction. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(6):3805-3817. doi:10.1167/iovs.10-6514

10. Borchman D. The optimum temperature for the heat therapy for meibomian gland dysfunction. Ocul Surf. 2019;17(2):360-364. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2019.02.005

11. Wienert V, Sick H, zur Mühlen J. Local thermal stress tolerance of human skin. Article in German. Anasth Intensivther Notfallmed. 1983;18(2):88-90.

12. Malanga GA, Yan N, Stark J. Mechanisms and efficacy of heat and cold therapies for musculoskeletal injury. Postgrad Med. 2015;127(1):57-65. doi:10.1080/00325481.2015.992719

13. Nadler SF, Weingand K, Kruse RJ. The physiologic basis and clinical applications of cryotherapy and thermotherapy for the pain practitioner. Pain Physician. 2004;7(3):395-399.

14. French SD, Cameron M, Walker BF, Reggars JW, Esterman AJ. Superficial heat or cold for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2006(1):CD004750. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004750.pub2

15. Mohamed-Noriega K, Loya-Garcia D, Vera-Duarte GR, et al. Ocular rosacea: an updated review. Cornea. 2025:44(4):525-537. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000003785

16. Barbosa EB, Tavares CM, Silva DFLD, Santos LS, França AFEDC, Alves M. Characterization of meibomian gland dysfunction in patients with rosacea. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2023;86(4):365-371. doi:10.5935/0004-2749.20230043

17. Liang X, Li Y, Xiong K, et al. Demodex infection changes ocular surface microbial communities, in which meibomian gland dysfunction may play a role. Ophthalmol Ther. 2021;10(3):601-617. doi:10.1007/s40123-021-00356-z

18. Baidya A, Mabalirajan U. Pathogenesis and management of atopic dermatitis: insights into epidermal barrier dysfunction and immune mechanisms. Explor Asthma Allergy. 2025;3:100973. doi:10.37349/eaa.2025.100973

19. Hui-Beckman JW, Goleva E, Leung DYM, Kim BE. The impact of temperature on the skin barrier and atopic dermatitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2023;131(6):713-719. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2023.08.007

20. Ebrahimiadib N, Yousefshahi F, Abdi P, Ghahari M, Modjtahedi BS. Ocular neuropathic pain: an overview focusing on ocular surface pains. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:2843-2854. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S262060

21. Schmidt KL, Ott VR, Röcher G, Schaller H. Heat, cold and inflammation. Z Rheumatol. 1979;38(11-12):391-404.

22. Iba T, Kondo Y, Maier CL, Helms J, Ferrer R, Levy JH. Impact of hyper- and hypothermia on cellular and whole-body physiology. J Intensive Care. 2025;13(1):4. doi:10.1186/s40560-024-00774-8

23. Gupta PK, Periman LM, Lain E, et al. Meibomian gland dysfunction: a dermatological perspective on pathogenesis and treatment outlook. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:4399-4404. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S327407

24. Knop E, Knop N, Millar T, Obata H, Sullivan DA. The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: report of the subcommittee on anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology of the meibomian gland. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(4):1938-1978. doi:10.1167/iovs.10-6997c

25. Valencia-Nieto L, Novo-Diez A, Blanco-Vázquez M, López-Miguel A. Therapeutic instruments targeting meibomian gland dysfunction. Ophthalmol Ther. 2020;9(4):797-807. doi:10.1007/s40123-020-00304-3

26. Lee G. Evidence-based strategies for warm compress therapy in meibomian gland dysfunction. Ophthalmol Ther. 2024;13(9):2481-2493. doi:10.1007/s40123-024-00988-x

27. Findlay Q, Reid K. Dry eye disease: when to treat and when to refer. Aust Prescr. 2018;41(5):160-163. doi:10.18773/austprescr.2018.048

Kaleb Abbott, OD, MS, FAAO, FOWNS

E: [email protected]

Abbott is an assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, Colorado, USA, specializing in ocular surface disease at the Dry Eye Clinic and Center for Ocular Inflammation, where he conducts research and participates in clinical trials. He has published numerous manuscripts and articles pertaining to dry eye and ocular surface disease, but his primary passion is pain perception and nerve dysfunction. He also serves as vice president of the Ocular Wellness and Nutrition Society and chairs the Nutrition, Disease Prevention and Wellness special interest group for the American Academy of Optometry.