Objective:
Estimate the number and describe the patterns of cosmetic- and personal-care-product-related eye injuries treated in U.S. emergency departments from 2005 to 2024.
Approach:
- Data source: Researchers analyzed the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, which samples emergency department visits and is used to estimate national injury totals.
- Study period: The analysis covered cosmetic-related eye injuries from 2005 through 2024.
Key Findings:
- The study estimated 42,457 emergency department visits for cosmetic-related eye injuries over 20 years—about 2,100 annually.
- Women and girls accounted for 81.8% of injuries; the average patient was 24 years old. Children aged 4 and under represented nearly one-quarter of cases.
- Most injuries occurred at home (63%). Thermal injuries accounted for about 26% of cases and chemical exposures for about 25%.
- Chemical burns made up 45.8% of injuries among young patients and 0.5% among adults. Children accounted for 83.2% of all chemical burns; 70% of injuries among children aged 4 and under followed unsupervised access to a product.
- Among injured adults, 90% were applying the product themselves. Over the study period, injuries involving heated products became less common, while injuries involving another person increased.
Interpretation:
Lead author Aatif Syed said the age-related differences were notable and that the findings could help target prevention. He cited safe storage and limiting children's unsupervised access to products, particularly liquids and sprays, and safer handling of heated styling tools and grooming instruments for adolescents and adults.
Limitations:
- The context does not provide detailed study methods, uncertainty estimates, or subgroup counts beyond the reported findings.
- The estimates are based on a national sample of emergency department visits, not all cosmetic-related eye injuries.
Conclusion:
The American Academy of Ophthalmology offers a free patient guide on safe cosmetic use around the eye.
Sources:
This content is an AI-generated, fully rewritten summary based on a published scholarly article. It does not reproduce the original text and is not a substitute for the original publication. Readers are encouraged to consult the source for full context, data, and methodology.