December 2002
Volume 43, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   December 2002
The Effect of Artificial Tears With Different CMC Formulations on Contrast Sensitivity
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • JO LaMotte
    Basic and Visual Science Southern California College of Optometry Fullerton CA
  • WH Ridder
    Basic and Visual Science Southern California College of Optometry Fullerton CA
  • T Kuan
    Allergan Inc Irvine CA
  • J Chang
    Allergan Inc Irvine CA
  • O Olejnik
    Allergan Inc Irvine CA
  • J Vehige
    Allergan Inc Irvine CA
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships    J.O. LaMotte, Southern Calif College of Optometry F; W.H. Ridder, Southern Calif College of Optometry F; T. Kuan, Allergan, Inc E; J. Chang, Allergan, Inc E; O. Olejnik, Allergan, Inc E; J. Vehige, Allergan, Inc E.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science December 2002, Vol.43, 3151. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      JO LaMotte, WH Ridder, T Kuan, J Chang, O Olejnik, J Vehige; The Effect of Artificial Tears With Different CMC Formulations on Contrast Sensitivity . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43(13):3151.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: Temporal changes in tear film structure can distort the optical wavefront as it passes through the tear layer and reduce contrast sensitivity. Theoretically, any substance applied to the tear layer that alters its structure could affect contrast sensitivity. The purpose of this study is to investigate how different formulations of sodium carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) applied to the tear layer affects contrast sensitivity over time. Methods: Fourteen normal subjects took part in this project. Celluvisc (1.0% high-viscosity CMC) was compared to Refresh Plus (0.5% low-viscosity CMC)(N = 5) or Liquigel (1.0% total CMC made by blending 0.35% high-viscosity with 0.65% medium viscosity CMC)(N = 10). The stimulus, viewed monocularly, was a stationary, vertically oriented, sine wave grating (14 cpd). A temporal, two-alternative, forced-choice paradigm combined with a self-paced method of limits was employed to monitor threshold over time. After baseline data collection, a drop of the artificial tear was applied to the tear layer and the procedure continued for 30 minutes. This allowed continual tracking of the threshold. Results: For the group data, Refresh Plus did not alter contrast sensitivity (P = 0.35). However, after Celluvisc was applied to the eye, there was a significant decrease in contrast sensitivity (P = 0.005). When Celluvisc was compared to Liquigel, both caused a significant decrease in contrast sensitivity (P < 0.0005), however, the contrast sensitivity returned to baseline faster with Liquigel than with Celluvisc (P = 0.02). Conclusion: The results indicate that Refresh Plus does not alter the contrast sensitivity, while the more viscous CMC products do. This may result from distortion of the optical wavefront passing through the tear layer. These results agree with patient observations that Celluvisc results in a moderate amount of blur that gradually subsides. In such patients, the shorter duration of blur with Liquigel, about half that of Celluvisc, may be more acceptable. The technique of blending various viscosity CMC materials while maintaining the total CMC concentration of 1.0% may be beneficial in dry eye therapy without causing excessive blur to patients.

Keywords: 376 cornea: tears/tear film/dry eye • 368 contrast sensitivity • 369 cornea: clinical science 
×
×

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.

×