BACKGROUND: Dacryoscintigraphy is a noninvasive method frequently used for assessment of the lacrimal drainage system. Sometimes conflicting results with patients' complaints are obtained, which have no clear explanation. In our hypothesis, follow-up of patients evaluated with dacryoscintigraphy could be helpful in determining possible explanations for these conflicting results. METHOD: Thirty-eight consecutive patients (76 eyes) who had not previously undergone dacryocystorhinostomy or probing were entered in the study. Following instillation of 4 MBq (99m)Tc-pertechnetate, a routine procedure of dacryoscintigraphy was performed. After a mean follow-up time of 1.2 +/- 0.3 years (range 0.9-1.6 years), all patients were reassessed clinically. RESULTS: Using initial patients' symptoms as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV of dacryoscintigraphy were calculated to be 82.1%, 75%, 60%, and 90.1%, respectively. The kappa value as a measure of agreement was 0.52. Considering the follow-up study as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV were calculated as follows, respectively: 96.3%, 90.4%, 96.3%, and 90.4%. The kappa value was 0.86. There were three initially symptom-free eyes with obstructive pattern on the scans, which developed epiphora on the follow-up. In fact, these eyes were initially classified as false positive, but follow-up assessment showed that they were true-positive scans in a subclinical state. CONCLUSION: Despite certain drawbacks inherent to the technique, dacryoscintigraphy provides valuable independent information and allows more accurate management decisions. In some patients, data obtained from lacrimal scintigraphy could be predictive, and it makes possible determination of subclinical nasolacrimal duct obstructions.
BACKGROUND: Dacryoscintigraphy is a noninvasive method frequently used for assessment of the lacrimal drainage system. Sometimes conflicting results with patients' complaints are obtained, which have no clear explanation. In our hypothesis, follow-up of patients evaluated with dacryoscintigraphy could be helpful in determining possible explanations for these conflicting results. METHOD: Thirty-eight consecutive patients (76 eyes) who had not previously undergone dacryocystorhinostomy or probing were entered in the study. Following instillation of 4 MBq (99m)Tc-pertechnetate, a routine procedure of dacryoscintigraphy was performed. After a mean follow-up time of 1.2 +/- 0.3 years (range 0.9-1.6 years), all patients were reassessed clinically. RESULTS: Using initial patients' symptoms as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV of dacryoscintigraphy were calculated to be 82.1%, 75%, 60%, and 90.1%, respectively. The kappa value as a measure of agreement was 0.52. Considering the follow-up study as the gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV were calculated as follows, respectively: 96.3%, 90.4%, 96.3%, and 90.4%. The kappa value was 0.86. There were three initially symptom-free eyes with obstructive pattern on the scans, which developed epiphora on the follow-up. In fact, these eyes were initially classified as false positive, but follow-up assessment showed that they were true-positive scans in a subclinical state. CONCLUSION: Despite certain drawbacks inherent to the technique, dacryoscintigraphy provides valuable independent information and allows more accurate management decisions. In some patients, data obtained from lacrimal scintigraphy could be predictive, and it makes possible determination of subclinical nasolacrimal duct obstructions.