4.6 Article

Successful tear lipid layer treatment for refractory dry eye in office workers by low-dose lipid application on the full-length eyelid margin

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 142, Issue 2, Pages 264-270

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.03.022

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To test tear lipid layer treatment by low-dose lipid application on the full,length eyelid margin for the treatment of office workers with dry eyes refractory to conventional treatments. DESIGN: Prospective interventional case series. METHODS: Thirty eyes of 30 office workers with dry eyes with dark tear interference images, which did not respond to conventional treatments, were included. To supply lipid using a commercially available nonpreserved topical medication having both polar and nonpolar lipid base, ofloxacin eye ointment (Santen Pharmaceutical Osaka, Japan) was selected. Low-dose ofloxacin ointment application on the full-length eyelid margin was carried out three times a day for two weeks. The symptom of ocular dryness using a visual analog scale, tear interferometry to assess lipid layer thickness (LLT), corneal fluorescein staining, tear-film breakup time (BUT), and meibum expressibility gradings were compared. RESULTS: After the treatment, the symptom score of ocular dryness decreased from 91.4 +/- 11.9 to 33.6 +/- 21.0 (P < .0001), LLT increased from 39 +/- 4 nm to 161 +/- 91 nm (P < .0001), BUT was prolonged from 2.6 +/- 1.6 seconds to 4.8 +/- 2.1 seconds (P =.01), and meibum expressibility gradings decreased from 2.8 +/- 1.3 to 1.6 +/- 1.3 (P =.0005). CONCLUSION: For office workers with refractory dry eyes, tear lipid layer treatment by low-dose ointment applied on the full,length eyelid margin was shown to be an effective approach. The applied lipid formed a uniform lipid layer, which contributed to tear stability, leading to the improvement of the symptom.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available