Literature DB >> 21052504

Clinical outcomes of initial and repeated nasolacrimal duct office-based probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Deok Sun Cha1, Hwa Lee, Min Soo Park, Jong Mi Lee, Se Hyun Baek.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To characterize the outcomes of initial and repeated office-based probing as a primary treatment for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) in children.
METHODS: The medical records of patients who underwent nasolacrimal duct office-based probing for CNLDO between March 2004 and January 2008 were reviewed retrospectively. Nasolacrimal duct probing was performed on 244 eyes from 229 consecutive patients with CNLDO. Patients who were refractory to the first probing underwent a second probing 4 to 8 weeks later.
RESULTS: Based on exclusion criteria, 244 eyes from 229 patients (117 males and 112 females), aged 6 to 71 months (mean, 12.4 ± 8.36) were included. The success rate of the initial probing was 80% (196 of 244) for all patients, 82% (111 of 136) in the 6 to 12 month age group, 79% (64 of 81) in the 13 to 18 months age group, and 78% (21 of 27) among individuals older than 19 months (p = 0.868, Pearson chi-square test). The success rate of the second probing was 61% (25 of 41) for all patients, 74% (17 of 23) in the 6 to 12 months age group, 58% (7 of 12) in the 13 to 18 months age group, and 17% (1 of 6) among individuals older than 19 months (p = 0.043, Fisher's exact test).
CONCLUSIONS: While the success rate of initial nasolacrimal duct probing is not affected by age, the rate of success rate with a second probing was significantly lower in patients older than 19 months. Based on the results, authors recommend further surgical interventions, such as silicone tube intubation or balloon dacryocystoplasty, instead of repeated office probing for patients older than 19 months, if an initial office probing has failed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction; Nasolacrimal duct probing; Office probing; Repeated probing

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21052504      PMCID: PMC2955267          DOI: 10.3341/kjo.2010.24.5.261

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 1011-8942


  26 in total

1.  Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: irrigation or probing?

Authors:  Y S Kim; S C Moon; K W Yoo
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2000-12

2.  DACRYOCYSTITIS IN INFANCY.

Authors:  O O Ffooks
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  1962-07       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  Congenital impatency of the nasolacrimal duct.

Authors:  D GUERRY; E L KENDIG
Journal:  Arch Ophthal       Date:  1948-02

4.  Medical management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Authors:  L B Nelson; J H Calhoun; H Menduke
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in Japanese infants: its incidence and treatment with massage.

Authors:  S Noda; S Hayasaka; T Setogawa
Journal:  J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus       Date:  1991 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.402

6.  Outcome of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in older children.

Authors:  S G Honavar; V E Prakash; G N Rao
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.258

7.  Results of late probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Authors:  J el-Mansoury; J H Calhoun; L B Nelson; R D Harley
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  Success rates of nasolacrimal duct probing at time intervals after 1 year of age.

Authors:  R M Robb
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 12.079

9.  Treatment of congenital nasolacrimal system obstruction.

Authors:  J D Baker
Journal:  J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus       Date:  1985 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.402

10.  The natural course of congenital obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct.

Authors:  R A Petersen; R M Robb
Journal:  J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus       Date:  1978 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.402

View more
  5 in total

1.  Office probing for treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction in infants.

Authors:  Aaron M Miller; Danielle L Chandler; Michael X Repka; Darren L Hoover; Katherine A Lee; Michele Melia; Paul J Rychwalski; David I Silbert; Roy W Beck; Eric R Crouch; Sean Donahue; Jonathan M Holmes; Graham E Quinn; Nick A Sala; Susan Schloff; David K Wallace; Nicole C Foster; Kevin D Frick; Richard P Golden; Scott R Lambert; D Robbins Tien; David R Weakley
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.220

2.  Success rates of dacryoendoscopy-guided probing for recalcitrant congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Authors:  Masahiro Fujimoto; Ken Ogino; Hiroko Matsuyama; Chika Miyazaki
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 2.447

3.  Effects of medication methods after simple and effective probing of lacrimal passage.

Authors:  Bin Lu; Hua-Ying Xie; Cai-Ping Shi; Chun-Si Xu; Mei-Hong Gu
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

4.  Success rate of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction at various ages.

Authors:  Semi Perveen; Aalia Rasool Sufi; Sabia Rashid; Afroz Khan
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2014-01

Review 5.  Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction (CNLDO): A Review.

Authors:  Aldo Vagge; Lorenzo Ferro Desideri; Paolo Nucci; Massimiliano Serafino; Giuseppe Giannaccare; Andrea Lembo; Carlo Enrico Traverso
Journal:  Diseases       Date:  2018-10-22
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.