Safety and efficacy of wiping lid margins with lid hygiene shampoo using the “eye brush”, a novel lid hygiene item, in healthy subjects: a pilot study

Abstract Background To evaluate the safety and efficacy of using a lid hygiene brush prototype to wipe the lid margins with lid hygiene shampoo in subjects with normal meibomian glands. Methods Twelve eyes of 6 subjects were all evaluated just before and after wiping lid margins using 1) tap water alone, 2) Eye Shampoo, 3) Eye Brush, or 4) both products, each during a different week. The results after using both products twice daily for 1 month were also evaluated. Wiping efficacy was determined by post-wiping scores for the remaining fluorescein-stained 0.3% Tarivid ointment fully applied to eyelids and lid margins under microscopic view illuminated by blue light just after performing each of the four lid hygiene methods described above. Results No significant deterioration in ocular conditions occurred. Eyestrain, eye discharge, and dryness decreased with tap water (P = 0.020), Eye Shampoo (P = 0.036), and Eye Brush (P = 0.014), respectively. Sensations of eye discharge increased after 1 month of using both products (P = 0.042). The wiping efficacy of Eye Brush, Eye Shampoo or both was significantly greater than that of tap water alone (two-sided test, P = 0.003, 0.003, 0.002), and using both significantly increased efficacy above Eye Shampoo use alone (one-sided test, P = 0.009). Conclusions Wiping lid margins using Eye Brush enhanced the cleansing power of Eye Shampoo. A daily healthcare routine using both products could be a safe and effective option for daily lid hygiene. Trial registration UMIN000016905. Registration date: March 24, 2015; the study was prospectively registered

Demographics of the study population.

Demographics of the study population.</p

Heart rate variability.

Heart rate variability.</p

Relation of accommodative microfluctuation with dry eye symptoms in short tear break-up time dry eye

<div><p>Purpose</p><p>To investigate accommodative microfluctuations (AMFs) and visual function in short tear break-up time (BUT)-type dry eye (DE) and non-DE subjects.</p><p>Methods</p><p>This prospective comparative study included 48 volunteers with DE symptoms (mean age 34.8 ± 5.5 years, age range 25–42 years) and 73 without DE symptoms (mean age 30.6 ± 4.7 years, age range 25–42 years). The eyes were divided into two groups: (1) DE group with DE symptoms and BUT ≤ 5 s and (2) non-DE group without DE symptoms and BUT > 5 s. We excluded eyes with Schirmer score ≤ 5 mm and positive keratoconjunctival epithelial damage. Tear evaluation, AMF, and functional visual acuity (VA) examinations were performed. AMF parameters included total high-frequency component (HFC), HFC with low accommodation for the task of staring into the distance (HFC1), and HFC with high accommodation for deskwork (HFC2). Functional VA parameters included starting VA, functional VA, visual maintenance ratio, and blink frequency.</p><p>Results</p><p>A total of 33 and 34 eyes were categorized in the DE and non-DE groups, respectively. Mean blink frequency and HFC1 values were significantly higher in the DE group than they were in the non-DE group.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>DEs with symptoms showed abnormal AMF and visual function, which may be associated with DE symptoms.</p></div

The Silmee™ Bar type Lite (TDK, Tokyo, Japan) device.

This biosensor automatically calculates heartbeat intervals, pulse wave intervals, and autonomic nerve activity by measuring and analyzing electrocardiograms, pulse waves, acceleration, and/or skin temperature.</p

Raw data.

(PDF)</p

Functional Visual Acuity of Early Presbyopia.

PURPOSE:To evaluate visual function in patients with early presbyopia using the functional visual acuity (FVA) test. METHODS:This study included 27 eyes of 27 healthy older volunteers (mean age, 44.1 ± 2.6 years) and 14 eyes of 14 healthy young volunteers (mean age, 28.4±4.8 years). The distance-corrected visual acuity (DCVA), distance-corrected near VA (DCNVA), subjective amplitude of accommodation (AA), and distance and near pupillary diameters were measured. The distance FVA and distance-corrected near FVA (DCNFVA) were measured using the FVA Measurement System. The standard Schirmer test and standard tear break-up time measurement also were performed. RESULTS:The logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) DCVA was better than 0 in all subjects. The percentages of subjects with logMAR DCNVA below 0 was significantly lower in the presbyopia group than in the young group. The DCNFVA in the presbyopia group was significantly (P < 0.001) poorer than the DCNVA in that group. Significant linear negative correlations were seen between the DCNVA and AA (r = -0.507, P < 0.001) and the DCNFVA and AA (r = -0.681, P < 0.001) in the older subjects. Stepwise regression analysis showed that only the AA was a significant factor predictive of the DCNFVA in the presbyopia group. Tear function parameters were not adopted in the regression model. CONCLUSIONS:Measurement of the DCNFVA can detect decreased AA in early presbyopia better than measurement of the conventional near VA. The DCNFVA is a good index for early presbyopia

The effect of instilling the ophthalmic solution on the LF/HF ratio and typical cases of fluctuations in the LF/HF ratio over time in the DE and non-DE groups.

(A) The LF/HF ratio pre- and post-instillation of ophthalmic solution in the DE and non-DE groups. There are no significant changes in either the DE or non-DE groups (P > 0.05). (B) The standard deviation of the LF/HF ratio pre- and post-instillation of ophthalmic solution in the DE and non-DE groups. The standard deviation of the LF/HF ratio significantly decreased post-instillation in the DE group (P < 0.05), whereas it was low pre-instillation and increased post-instillation in the non-DE group. (C) Typical DE and non-DE cases show fluctuation of the LF/HF ratio over time. The DE case presented is of a 39-year-old woman with a J-OSDI score of 18.8 points. The non-DE case is of a 21-year-old woman with a J-OSDI score of 9.1 points. The fluctuation in the LF/HF ratio of the DE case is larger than of the non-DE case, and it decreases post-instillation. DE, dry eye; HF, high-frequency component; J-OSDI, Japanese version of the Ocular Surface Disease Index Questionnaire; LF, low-frequency component.</p