Cargando…

Tear instability importance, mechanisms, validity and reliability of assessment

PURPOSE: To examine the factors which contribute to tear stability and the validity and reliability of methods used for assessing tear break up time which is a core part of an examination of tear stability in dry eye patients. METHODS: A review of publications which are relevant to tear stability an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Mcmonnies, Charles W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6147744/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29337016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2017.11.004
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To examine the factors which contribute to tear stability and the validity and reliability of methods used for assessing tear break up time which is a core part of an examination of tear stability in dry eye patients. METHODS: A review of publications which are relevant to tear stability and its assessment. RESULTS: Tear break up time may be more invasive than intended if difficulty avoiding blinking during assessment results in reflex tearing. Notwithstanding control of instilled volume and concentration of fluorescein, on-eye dilution is highly variable according to resident tear volume. Blinking to evenly distribute fluorescein may improve tear and lipid layer thickness so habitual tear function is not assessed. Emphasis on a role for Meibomian gland dysfunction as a cause of tear instability may be appropriate in many cases but ignores the roles for other sources of tear lipid and other non-lipid contributions to tear instability such as aqueous or mucus deficiency, desiccated epitheliopathy or anomalous blinking. Objective less-invasive methods eliminate problems of inter-observer variability and can reliably ‘maintain vigilance’ over wide areas of the tear layer. However less-invasive results to date include mean tear break up findings which are both shorter and longer than expected for normal controls. CONCLUSIONS: Fluorescein tear break up time assessments cannot be standardised and less-invasive methods are not yet standardised. Objective less-invasive and subjective fluorescein break up time tests do not appear to be measuring the same tear phenomena although both should be performed before other invasive procedures.