## 3 Results  
In Figure 2, the TBUT analysis before the TECAR treatment (a) and after the treatment (b) is reported. The colored diagrams on the right of the (a) and (b) figures represent the state of the tear film. The colored scale, from green to red, indicates the suffering degree of the tear film, where green denotes no suffering and red indicates high suffering of the tear film. In Figure 3, the measurement of the meniscus height, before TECAR treatment (a) and after it (b), is reported. In Figure 4, the results obtained after the statistical analysis are reported. In Figure 4, the outcomes used for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the treatment are plotted for each session. In Tables 2 and 3, we summarize the results obtained after the statistical analysis. In addition, in Figure 5 we report the OCTA image before (a) and after the TECAR treatments (b). The OCTA technique permits the visualization of structure and blood flow within the vitreous, retina and choroid, separately. It is also possible to examine the distinct capillary networks of the retina using this technique. Figure 5a visualizes the vascular networks (or plexuses) in the retina, showing a pathological alteration. After TECAR therapy, Figure 5b, we can observe an improvement of the pathological alteration, resulting in a major vascularization and in an improvement of vessel density. In particular, we observed no significant difference in RNFL thickness before and after the TECAR treatments. On the other hand, the RPC densities analysis showed large differences between the two groups. After the TECAR treatments, the whole-body image density increased by approximately 8%, the inside optic disc area density increased by approximately 23% and the peripapillary area density increased by approximately 5%. No significant difference was found related to the ONH analysis. Figure 2: TBUT analysis before (a) and after (b) TECAR treatments. The acquired images refer to a different subject from Figure 1.  
After the end of the treatments, the patients did not show any symptoms of discomfort. Figure 3: Tear meniscus height before (**a**) and after (**b**) TECAR treatments. The acquired images refer to a different subject from Figures 1 and 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Outcome**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group 2**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **T1** & **T2** & **T1** & **T2** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Meibography} & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 1.93 \(\pm\) 0.70 & 1.93 \(\pm\) 0.70 \\  & 0.93 & 0.93 & 0.99 & 0.99 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{TBUT} & 16.64 \(\pm\) 4.29 & 16.86 \(\pm\) 4.56 & 8.00 \(\pm\) 1.00 & 8.14 \(\pm\) 1.36 \\  & \textless{}0.001 * & \textless{}0.001 * & 0.03 * & 0.02 * \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Interferometry} & 74.00 \(\pm\) 23.79 & 70.36 \(\pm\) 22.78 & 40.79 \(\pm\) 18.01 & 40.07 \(\pm\) 19.37 \\  & \textless{}0.001 * & \textless{}0.001 * & 0.49 & 0.59 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Tear meniscus height} & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.67 \(\pm\) 0.14 & 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.13 \\  & \textless{}0.001 * & \textless{}0.001 * & 0.99 & 0.99 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{*indicates \(p\)-values \(<\) 0.05.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparisons of T1 and T2 datasets with T0 session for both Group 1 and 2. First row: mean \(\pm\) SD; second row: \(p\)-value. Figure 4: Results of the statistical analysis conducted on the parameters used for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the treatment conducted in the two different sessions, T1 and T2, respectively. Significant comparisons are highlighted using * of the color of the significantly different dataset (In figure, a.u. : arbitrary unit; s: seconds; nm: nanometer; mm: millimeter; T0, T1 and T2 represent the three different sessions; G(1 or 2)T(1 or 2): Group (1 or 2) at session (1 or 2)).