Wang Michael T M, Cho Irene Sung Hee, Jung Soo Hee, Craig Jennifer P
Department of Ophthalmology, New Zealand National Eye Centre, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Department of Ophthalmology, New Zealand National Eye Centre, The University of Auckland, New Zealand; School of Optometry and Vision Science, New Zealand National Eye Centre, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2017 Aug;40(4):236-241. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2017.03.001. Epub 2017 Mar 11.
To compare the effects on tear film parameters and contamination in cosmetic eyeliner wearers, after single application of two lipid-based dry eye treatments: a lipid-containing lubricant eye drop and a phospholipid liposomal spray.
Fifty participants were enrolled in a prospective, randomised, paired-eye, investigator-masked trial. Pencil eyeliner (Body Shop Crayon Eye Definer) was applied to the upper eyelid periocular skin of both eyes, anterior to the lash line. Baseline tear film quality was assessed fifteen minutes after eyeliner application. A lubricant drop (Systane Balance) was then applied to one eye (randomised), and liposomal spray (Tears Again) to the contralateral eye. Tear film contamination, lipid layer grade, non-invasive tear film break-up time and tear evaporation rate were evaluated fifteen minutes post-treatment and compared to pre-treatment values.
Pre-treatment measurements did not differ between eyes assigned to lubricant drop and liposomal spray. Tear film contamination was observed in a greater proportion of eyes following both treatments (both p<0.05), with no significant difference between treatments (p=0.41). Both treatments improved lipid layer thickness (both p≤0.01), but effected no significant change in non-invasive tear film break-up time or tear evaporation rate (all p>0.05). Changes in tear film parameters did not differ between treatments (all p>0.05).
Both the lipid-containing lubricant eye drop and phospholipid liposomal spray result in clinically apparent tear film contamination in eyeliner cosmetic wearers. Although both treatments effected an increase in lipid layer thickness, neither displayed clinical efficacy in improving tear film stability.
比较单次应用两种基于脂质的干眼治疗方法（一种含脂质的润滑眼药水和一种磷脂脂质体喷雾）对使用化妆品眼线笔者泪膜参数和污染情况的影响。
50名参与者纳入一项前瞻性、随机、双眼配对、研究者设盲的试验。将眼线笔（美体小铺蜡笔眼线笔）涂于双眼上睑睫毛线前方的眼周皮肤。在涂眼线笔15分钟后评估基线泪膜质量。然后将一种润滑眼药水（思然倍润）随机滴入一只眼，将脂质体喷雾（再立新）喷入对侧眼。在治疗后15分钟评估泪膜污染、脂质层分级、非侵入性泪膜破裂时间和泪液蒸发率，并与治疗前值进行比较。
分配使用润滑眼药水和脂质体喷雾的双眼治疗前测量值无差异。两种治疗后，更多比例的眼出现泪膜污染（均p<0.05），两种治疗之间无显著差异（p=0.41）。两种治疗均改善了脂质层厚度（均p≤0.01），但对非侵入性泪膜破裂时间或泪液蒸发率无显著影响（均p>0.05）。两种治疗之间泪膜参数的变化无差异（均p>0.05）。
含脂质的润滑眼药水和磷脂脂质体喷雾均会导致使用化妆品眼线笔者出现临床上明显的泪膜污染。虽然两种治疗均使脂质层厚度增加，但在改善泪膜稳定性方面均未显示出临床疗效。
