Which of the following statements regarding ophthalmic ointments used for lubrication is NOT true?

Ophthalmic ointments are formulated to provide prolonged lubrication and are particularly beneficial in certain scenarios. The statement regarding ointments being less likely to result in secondary infections is not true. In fact, the thicker consistency of ointments may create an environment that can potentially promote bacterial growth if proper hygiene is not maintained or if the ointment is contaminated. This is especially important to consider in patients who may have existing infections or conditions that compromise ocular surface integrity.

In contrast, the other statements hold true: ointments are indeed advantageous for children as they can remain in the eye longer without being washed away by tears, providing sustained relief. Celluvisc, while a lubricant, is not exactly an ointment, but rather a preservative-free artificial tear solution and can be misclassified in this context. Additionally, the viscosity of ointments can obstruct vision, which is why they are often recommended for nighttime use when clear vision is not as critical.