E C Sener1, M Onerci. 1. Strabismus and Pediatric Ophthalmology Division, Department of Ophthalmology, Hacettepe University Hospitals, 06100 Ankara, Turkey. ecsener@hacettepe.edu.tr
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The rate of false passages during probing for congenital nasolacrimal system obstruction (CNLO) is a major limiting factor for a successful outcome. This shortcoming may be decreased with the use of a nasal endoscope during probing. This approach is particularly important in the probing training of ophthalmology residents. METHODS: An experienced pediatric ophthalmologist performed probings on 11 eyes, and a group of ophthalmology residents under his supervision performed probings on another 11 eyes for CNLO. Their claims of a successful or unsuccessful procedure were evaluated with nasal endoscopy by an ear--nose--throat (ENT) surgeon. The age range of the patients was 8-23 months. RESULTS: The ophthalmologist made two false passages, one of which he was aware, out of 11 eyes. The residents had five false passages, two of which were unclear to them, out of another 11 eyes. No false passages occurred in obstructions at the level of the Hasner valve. None of the successful probings required more than a 30 mm probe introduction into the nasolacrimal canal from the inferior punctum. CONCLUSION: It seems justified to have a nasal endoscopic evaluation, performed by an ENT surgeon, for probings during the training program of ophthalmology residents. Difficult cases with stenosis proximal to the inferior meatus, prior false passage experience on a particular case, and any indication for silicone tube implantation will benefit from the use of an endoscope during the procedure. In order to achieve the best results in CNLO, the collaborative teamwork of an ophthalmologist and an ENT specialist is necessary.
OBJECTIVE: The rate of false passages during probing for congenital nasolacrimal system obstruction (CNLO) is a major limiting factor for a successful outcome. This shortcoming may be decreased with the use of a nasal endoscope during probing. This approach is particularly important in the probing training of ophthalmology residents. METHODS: An experienced pediatric ophthalmologist performed probings on 11 eyes, and a group of ophthalmology residents under his supervision performed probings on another 11 eyes for CNLO. Their claims of a successful or unsuccessful procedure were evaluated with nasal endoscopy by an ear--nose--throat (ENT) surgeon. The age range of the patients was 8-23 months. RESULTS: The ophthalmologist made two false passages, one of which he was aware, out of 11 eyes. The residents had five false passages, two of which were unclear to them, out of another 11 eyes. No false passages occurred in obstructions at the level of the Hasner valve. None of the successful probings required more than a 30 mm probe introduction into the nasolacrimal canal from the inferior punctum. CONCLUSION: It seems justified to have a nasal endoscopic evaluation, performed by an ENT surgeon, for probings during the training program of ophthalmology residents. Difficult cases with stenosis proximal to the inferior meatus, prior false passage experience on a particular case, and any indication for silicone tube implantation will benefit from the use of an endoscope during the procedure. In order to achieve the best results in CNLO, the collaborative teamwork of an ophthalmologist and an ENT specialist is necessary.