The Effect of Age and Gender on Tear Film Breakup Time | ||||
| Egyptian Journal of Medical Research | ||||
| Article 11, Volume 2, Issue 2 - Serial Number 1, June 2021, Page 137-148 PDF (411.04 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/ejmr.2021.174931 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Yehia M. Salah Eldin Mostafa; Mohamed Yasser Sayed Saif; Mostafa Abdelnaby Saeed; Samar Ahmad Mohammad ElSaadany | ||||
| Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine – Beni-Suef University | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background: Dry eye is a very common yet often mis-diagnosed ocular disorder. The stability of the tear film plays an important role in the integrity of ocular surface. Fluorescein Tear Breakup Time FBUT is the most frequently used diagnostic test to determine tear film instability. There is still a debate about whether age and gender affect tear film stability. Objective: To study the effect of age and gender on Tear Film Breakup Time. Patients and Methods: The study was performed on 100 random individuals (200 eyes) older than 18 years old. Full history taking and thorough slit lamp examination were performed first, followed by FBUT. The results were recorded and analyzed. Results: The study showed that there was negative relation between age and FBUT with high significance (p < 0.001). The study also showed that there was high statistically significance difference (p < 0.001) between male and female as regard FBUT, and that the values of FBUT were higher in males than in females. Conclusion: Tear film becomes less stable with age, possibly due to significant changes in the tear lipid layer leading to less protection from evaporation in the aging population. The observed changes are more marked in women than in men. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Fluorescein Tear Breakup Time; Tear Breakup Time | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Lemp MA, Foulks GN. The definition and classification of dry eye disease. Ocul Surf. 2007; 5(2):75-92. 2. Gayton JL. Etiology, prevalence, and treatment of dry eye disease. Clin Ophthalmol 2009;3:405–12. Epub 2009 July 14. 3. Yu AY, Lu T, Pan AP, Lin DR, Xu CC, Huang JH et al. Assessment of tear film optical quality dynamics. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2016; 57(8):3821-7. 4. Onkar A, Pandey DJ, Bist HK, Sen S. Tear and pterygium: A clinico- pathological study of conjunctiva for tear film anomaly in pterygium. Eye Cataract Surg. 2017; 3:24. 5. Wolffsohn JS, Arita R, Chalmers R, Djalilian A, Dogru M, Dumbleton K et al. TFOS DEWS II diagnostic methodology report. The ocular surface. 2017; 15(3):539-74. 6. Torricelli A, Andre AM, Ramos- Esteban JC, Wilson S. Dry Eye. In Management of Complications in Refractive Surgery. Springer, Cham. 2018; 99-112. 7. Pflugfelder SC, Tseng SC, Sanabria O, Kell H, Garcia CG, Felix C et al. Evaluation of subjective assessments and objective diagnostic tests for diagnosing tear film disorders known to cause ocular irritation. Cornea. 1998; 17(1):38-56. 8. Ozdemir M, Temizdemir H. Age-and gender-related tear function changes in normal population. Eye. 2010; 24(1):79- 83. 9. Yeh TN, Graham AD, Lin MC. Relationships among tear film stability, osmolarity, and dryness symptoms. Optometry and vision science: official publication of the American Academy of Optometry. 2015; 92(9):e264. 10. Bukhari A, Ajlan R, Alsaggaf H. Prevalence of dry eye in the normal population in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Orbit. 2009; 28(6):392-7. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 1,010 PDF Download: 749 |
||||
