May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
White Light Tear Film Interferometry in Dry Eye Sub–Types
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J.R. Paugh
    Southern Calif Coll Optometry, Fullerton, CA
  • D.J. Louie
    Southern Calif Coll Optometry, Fullerton, CA
  • E. Guzman
    Southern Calif Coll Optometry, Fullerton, CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J.R. Paugh, None; D.J. Louie, None; E. Guzman, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 93. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J.R. Paugh, D.J. Louie, E. Guzman; White Light Tear Film Interferometry in Dry Eye Sub–Types . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):93.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose:White light interferometric observations, while frequently used in dry eye investigations, have not been reported relative to specific dry eye sub–types. We undertook a systematic investigation of dry eye subjects to determine whether sub–type differentiation is possible using interferometry. Methods: A clinic–based sample of dry eye subjects was recruited and assessed using a standardized testing regimen as part of an ongoing dry eye characterization study. Forty–one subjects were screened for dry eye using a modified symptom questionnaire (Schein et al., 1997, Ophthalmol,104:1395,), noninvasive testing (lipid interferometry) and a battery of invasive (e.g., TBUT, fluorescein and rose bengal staining, Schirmer I) tests. Measures for dry eye diagnosis used three of the four NEI/Industry working group recommendations: symptoms, tear instability and surface damage (Lemp M., 1995, CLAO J, 21:221,). Specific diagnostic criteria were symptom score > 6/24, TBUT < 10 secs, and surface damage with fluorescein staining > 1.0 overall corneal grade (0–4 scale). . Subjects were classified as having atrophic meibomian gland disease (AMGD), blepharitis (Bleph), mixed aqueous tear deficiency with meibomian gland dysfunction (MIX), and a final grouping of non–specific dry eyes (DRY). White light inteferometric observations were quantified by comparison with previously published scale (Yokoi, N et al, 1996, Am J Ophthalmol, 122:818). Results: 35 of the 41 subjects screened were classified as dry based on the above diagnostic criteria. Analysis of interferometric observations of the atrophic MGD sub–group (n=16, mean = 2.95 ±0.80), blepharitis sub–group (n=6, mean =3.27±0.50), mixed sub–group (n=10, mean =3.00±0.90) and non–specific subgroup (n=3, mean=2.77±1.08) showed no significant differences (p=0.800, ANOVA).Conclusions: White light interferometry is a valuable tool in differentiating dry eye subjects from normal subjects. However, these observations may have limited efficacy in discriminating between dry eye sub–types.

Keywords: cornea: clinical science • cornea: tears/tear film/dry eye 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×