Literature DB >> 7819169

Long-term results after probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

S M Sturrock1, C J MacEwen, J D Young.   

Abstract

The long term results of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction were reviewed using a parental questionnaire issued to both treated and age-matched control groups. On follow up 4-13 years after probing in childhood 30% of patients still had symptoms of epiphora or discharge. Surprisingly, a similar high symptom rate was found in the controls, such that there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of symptoms between the two groups. Probing had therefore apparently reduced the symptom rate to a level close to normal for the age group concerned. All studies on the incidence of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction must be interpreted with reference to the known high rate of spontaneous resolution as a clear trend has been demonstrated towards a lower incidence of symptoms the longer the follow up after probing. This finding would support a policy of delay before further intervention in patients with mild residual symptoms after a technically successful probing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7819169      PMCID: PMC504986          DOI: 10.1136/bjo.78.12.892

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  11 in total

1.  The treatment of congenital dacryostenosis.

Authors:  R J BROGGI
Journal:  AMA Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1959-01

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.  Lacrimal probing complications.

Authors:  J L Wobig
Journal:  Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 1.746

5.  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

6.  Timing of initial probing and irrigation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Authors:  J A Katowitz; M G Welsh
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  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

8.  Medical management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Authors:  T O Paul
Journal:  J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus       Date:  1985 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.402

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
  9 in total

1.  Value of nasal endoscopy and probing in the diagnosis and management of children with congenital epiphora.

Authors:  C J MacEwen; J D Young; C W Barras; B Ram; P S White
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.638

2.  Management of childhood epiphora.

Authors:  J E Marr; A Drake-Lee; H E Willshaw
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 4.638

3.  Long-term results of probing guided with soft cannula in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Authors:  Dilek Yuksel; Pınar Altiaylik Ozer
Journal:  Jpn J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-11-16       Impact factor: 2.447

4.  Probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in older children.

Authors:  Bahram Eshragi; Masoud Aghsaei Fard; Babak Masomian; Mohammadreza Akbari
Journal:  Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013 Oct-Dec

5.  A symptom survey and quality of life questionnaire for nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children.

Authors:  Jonathan M Holmes; David A Leske; Stephen R Cole; Danielle L Chandler; Michael X Repka; David I Silbert; David Robbins Tien; Elizabeth A Bradley; Nicholas A Sala; Erika M Levin; Darren L Hoover; Deborah L Klimek; Brian G Mohney; Daniel M Laby; Katherine A Lee; Robert W Enzenauer; Darron A Bacal; Monte D Mills; Roy W Beck
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2006-07-07       Impact factor: 12.079

6.  Efficacy of probing for children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a retrospective study using fluorescein dye disappearance test and lacrimal sac echography.

Authors:  Piero Steindler; Enrico Mantovani; Carlo Incorvaia; Francesco Parmeggiani
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-12-24       Impact factor: 3.117

7.  Late and very late initial probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: what is the cause of failure?

Authors:  M B Kashkouli; B Beigi; M M Parvaresh; A Kassaee; Z Tabatabaee
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.638

8.  Late probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Authors:  Mohammad Abrishami; Abbas Bagheri; Soltan-Hossein Salour; S Ali Mirdehghan
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2009-04

9.  Primary probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction with manually curved Bowman probes.

Authors:  Didem Serin; Ibrahim Bulent Buttanri; Mehmet Sahin Sevim; Bahtinur Buttanri
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-01-11
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.