Literature DB >> 23954210

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

Katherine A Lee1, 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.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of two treatment approaches for bilateral nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) in infancy.
DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial.
METHODS: We studied 57 infants between the ages of 6 and <10 months who had bilateral NLDO. Participants were randomized to receive either (1) immediate office-based probing within two weeks (n = 31) or (2) 6 months of observation and nonsurgical management followed by surgical facility-based probing for unresolved cases (n = 26). Treatment success was defined as the absence of clinical signs of NLDO (epiphora, increased tear lake, mucous discharge) in both eyes on masked examination at 18 months of age.
RESULTS: In the observation and deferred facility probing group, resolution without surgery occurred by 6 months after randomization in both eyes for 14 participants (56%), in one eye for 5 (20%), and in neither eye for 6 (24%). Eight participants in the observation and deferred facility probing group underwent facility probing (one of whom later had a second facility probing). Four participants in the immediate office probing group later underwent an additional procedure in a surgical facility. In the immediate office probing group, treatment success at 18 months of age occurred in both eyes for 19 of 29 (66%) participants and in one eye for 3 (10%); in the observation and deferred facility probing group, treatment success occurred in both eyes for 19 of 25 (76%) participants and in one eye for 3 (12%) (difference in success = -10%; 95% CI = -35% to 14%).
CONCLUSIONS: Both the immediate office probing approach and the observation and deferred facility probing approach are successful and reasonable treatment options for infants with bilateral NLDO.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23954210      PMCID: PMC3805692          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.06.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0002-9394            Impact factor:   5.258


  15 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.  Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach.

Authors:  S L Zeger; K Y Liang; P S Albert
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Congenital nasolacrimal system obstruction.

Authors:  B J Kushner
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1982-04

7.  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

8.  Primary treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction with nasolacrimal duct intubation in children younger than 4 years of age.

Authors:  Michael X Repka; B Michele Melia; Roy W Beck; C Scott Atkinson; Danielle L Chandler; Jonathan M Holmes; Alexander Khammar; David Morrison; Graham E Quinn; David I Silbert; Benjamin H Ticho; David K Wallace; David R Weakley
Journal:  J AAPOS       Date:  2008-07-02       Impact factor: 1.220

9.  Conservative management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Authors:  P Nucci; C Capoferri; R Alfarano; R Brancato
Journal:  J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus       Date:  1989 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
  4 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.  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

4.  Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction and Refractive Amblyopia Risk Factors: Effect of Age at the Time of Probing.

Authors:  Deniz Kilic; Ismail Aydin; Muhammed Rasit Sirem; Hatice Birgin; Soner Guven
Journal:  Beyoglu Eye J       Date:  2022-02-18
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.