Literature DB >> 23229693

A randomized trial comparing the cost-effectiveness of 2 approaches for treating unilateral nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 approaches for treating unilateral nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO).
METHODS: One hundred sixty-three infants aged 6 to less than 10 months with unilateral NLDO were randomly assigned to receive immediate office-based nasolacrimal duct probing (n = 82) or 6 months of observation/nonsurgical management (n = 81) followed by probing in a facility for persistent symptoms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment success was defined as the absence of clinical signs of NLDO (epiphora, increased tear lake, mucous discharge) on masked examination at age 18 months. Cost of treatment between randomization and age 18 months included costs for all surgical procedures and medications.
RESULTS: In the observation/deferred facility-probing group, NLDO resolved within 6 months without surgery in 44 of the 67 patients (66%; 95% CI, 54% to 76%) who completed the 6-month visit. Twenty-two (27%) of the 81 patients in the observation/deferred facility-probing group underwent surgery, 4 of whom were operated on within the initial 6 months. At age 18 months, 69 of 75 patients (92%) in the immediate office-probing group were treatment successes, compared with 58 of 71 observation/deferred facility-probing group patients (82%) (10% difference in success; 95% CI, -1% to 21%). The mean cost of treatment was $562 in the immediate office-probing group compared with $701 in the observation/deferred facility-probing group (difference, -$139; 95% CI, -$377 to $94). The immediate office-probing group experienced 3.0 fewer months of symptoms (95% CI, -1.8 to -4.0).
CONCLUSIONS: The immediate office-probing approach is likely more cost-effective than observation followed by deferred facility probing if needed. Adoption of the immediate office-probing approach would result in probing in approximately two-thirds of infants whose obstruction would have resolved within 6 months of nonsurgical management, but would largely avoid the need for probing under general anesthesia. APPLICATION TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Although unilateral NLDO often resolves without surgery, immediate office probing is an effective and potentially cost-saving treatment option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00780741.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23229693      PMCID: PMC3537230          DOI: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.2853

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0003-9950


  18 in total

1.  Dacryostenosis.

Authors:  H W PRICE
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  1947-03       Impact factor: 4.406

2.  DACRYOCYSTITIS IN INFANCY.

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

3.  Epiphora during the first year of life.

Authors:  C J MacEwen; J D Young
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Congenital impatency of the nasolacrimal duct.

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

5.  Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an example from a randomized trial.

Authors:  M A Chaudhary; S C Stearns
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Defining safe use of anesthesia in children.

Authors:  Bob Rappaport; R Daniel Mellon; Arthur Simone; Janet Woodcock
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-03-09       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Anesthesia in children--limitations of the data on neurotoxicity.

Authors:  Nancy L Glass; Shobha Malviya
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-03-09       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  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

9.  Cognitive and behavioral outcomes after early exposure to anesthesia and surgery.

Authors:  Randall P Flick; Slavica K Katusic; Robert C Colligan; Robert T Wilder; Robert G Voigt; Michael D Olson; Juraj Sprung; Amy L Weaver; Darrell R Schroeder; David O Warner
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2011-10-03       Impact factor: 7.124

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
  12 in total

Review 1.  Probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Authors:  Carisa Petris; Don Liu
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-07-12

2.  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

3.  Pediatric nasolacrimal duct obstruction-benefit of a combined therapeutic approach.

Authors:  Miloš Fischer; Iris-Susanne Horn; Mathias Otto; Mandy Pirlich; Andreas Dietz; Christian Mozet
Journal:  World J Pediatr       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 2.764

4.  A comparison of treatment approaches for bilateral congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Authors:  Katherine A Lee; Danielle L Chandler; Michael X Repka; Michele Melia; Roy W Beck; C Gail Summers; Kevin D Frick; Nicole C Foster; Raymond T Kraker; Scott Atkinson
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-08-15       Impact factor: 5.258

5.  Transcanalicular endoscopic primary dacryoplasty for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Authors:  Nozomi Matsumura; Toru Suzuki; Satoshi Goto; Takeshi Fujita; Shin Yamane; Maiko Maruyama-Inoue; Kazuaki Kadonosono
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 3.775

6.  The natural process of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and effect of lacrimal sac massage.

Authors:  Omer Karti; Eyyup Karahan; Durgul Acan; Tuncay Kusbeci
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 2.031

7.  Trends in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction surgical procedures in the United States from 2003 to 2016.

Authors:  Irma Muminovic; Won Yeol Ryu; Scott R Lambert
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2021-09-29       Impact factor: 1.220

8.  Outcome of monocanalicular intubation for complex congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: the role of age.

Authors:  Bahram Eshraghi; Hadi Ghadimi; Safoora Karami; Mojgan Nikdel
Journal:  Rom J Ophthalmol       Date:  2022 Jan-Mar

9.  Nasolacrimal duct obstruction following radioactive iodine 131 therapy in differentiated thyroid cancers: review of 19 cases.

Authors:  Khalid Hussain Al-Qahtani; Mushabbab Al Asiri; Mutahir A Tunio; Naji J Aljohani; Yasser Bayoumi; Iqbal Munir; Ayman AlAyoubi
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-12-05

Review 10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.