Swati Singh1, Mohammad Javed Ali2. 1. L.J. Eye Institute, Ambala, India. 2. Govindram Seksaria Institute of Dacryology, L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide a systematic review of the literature on congenital dacryocystoceles (CDCs) and summarize their presentations, investigations, management, and outcomes. METHODS: The authors performed a PubMed search of all articles published in English on CDCs. Data captured include demographics, clinical presentations, investigations, management modalities, complications, and outcomes. Fourteen major series (10 or more than 10 cases) and 89 isolated case reports/series on CDCs with a collective patient pool of 1,063 were studied in detail. Specific emphasis was laid on addressing the controversial issues including initial conservative versus surgical management and the role of endoscopic evaluation. RESULTS: Numerous terminologies have been used to describe CDC. Congenital dacryocystoceles are rare variants of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstructions and comprise of 0.1% to 0.3% of all such cases. There is a female predilection (64.2%, 683/1,063) and the mean age at presentation is at 7 days of birth. Initial conservative treatment can be a viable option in the absence of an acute dacryocystitis or a respiratory distress. Endoscopy-assisted probing appears to have better outcomes as compared with the in-office probing. Congenital dacryocystoceles with acute dacryocystitis are preferably managed with intravenous antibiotics and an early probing under endoscopy guidance to avoid missing intranasal cysts. Marsupialization is the preferred technique in the management of intranasal cysts. Silicone intubation was rarely used and has no definitive indications. Dacryocystorhinostomy is very rarely needed in the management of CDC. CONCLUSIONS: Congenital dacryocystocele is a commonly accepted term and its use should be advocated to enhance uniformity in reporting. Endoscopic evaluation of CDC is useful in the diagnosis and treatment of associated intranasal cysts and enhances the rates of successful outcomes.
PURPOSE: To provide a systematic review of the literature on congenital dacryocystoceles (CDCs) and summarize their presentations, investigations, management, and outcomes. METHODS: The authors performed a PubMed search of all articles published in English on CDCs. Data captured include demographics, clinical presentations, investigations, management modalities, complications, and outcomes. Fourteen major series (10 or more than 10 cases) and 89 isolated case reports/series on CDCs with a collective patient pool of 1,063 were studied in detail. Specific emphasis was laid on addressing the controversial issues including initial conservative versus surgical management and the role of endoscopic evaluation. RESULTS: Numerous terminologies have been used to describe CDC. Congenital dacryocystoceles are rare variants of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstructions and comprise of 0.1% to 0.3% of all such cases. There is a female predilection (64.2%, 683/1,063) and the mean age at presentation is at 7 days of birth. Initial conservative treatment can be a viable option in the absence of an acute dacryocystitis or a respiratory distress. Endoscopy-assisted probing appears to have better outcomes as compared with the in-office probing. Congenital dacryocystoceles with acute dacryocystitis are preferably managed with intravenous antibiotics and an early probing under endoscopy guidance to avoid missing intranasal cysts. Marsupialization is the preferred technique in the management of intranasal cysts. Silicone intubation was rarely used and has no definitive indications. Dacryocystorhinostomy is very rarely needed in the management of CDC. CONCLUSIONS: Congenital dacryocystocele is a commonly accepted term and its use should be advocated to enhance uniformity in reporting. Endoscopic evaluation of CDC is useful in the diagnosis and treatment of associated intranasal cysts and enhances the rates of successful outcomes.