OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of administering topical contrast material during helical CT dacryocystography and topical saline solution during MR dacryocystography to reveal the lacrimal drainage apparatus. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fourteen healthy volunteers underwent helical CT dacryocystography, MR dacryocystography, or both. Eight of the 14 subjects underwent both techniques; three subjects underwent MR dacryocystography, and three subjects underwent CT dacryocystography. Images were evaluated by two radiologists for degree of visualization of components of the lacrimal drainage apparatus. Each volunteer was questioned about the relative discomfort of contrast material and saline solution administration. RESULTS: The lacrimal drainage system was seen on both CT dacryocystography and MR dacryocystography. CT dacryocystography allowed two-dimensional and three-dimensional reconstructions on which adjacent bone anatomy could be seen. The MR dacryocystography two-dimensional reconstructions and maximum intensity projections also showed the drainage apparatus. However, smaller drainage structures were more consistently seen on CT dacryocystography than on MR dacryocystography. Saline solution was more comfortable than contrast material. CONCLUSION: CT dacryocystography and MR dacryocystography reproducibly and non-invasively revealed the lacrimal drainage apparatus and allowed a better physiologic examination than cannulation dacryocystography. MR dacryocystography can be performed without administration of ionizing radiation or contrast material, but this technique cannot show adjacent bone anatomy and less consistently showed the smaller drainage structures than CT dacryocystography.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of administering topical contrast material during helical CT dacryocystography and topical saline solution during MR dacryocystography to reveal the lacrimal drainage apparatus. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fourteen healthy volunteers underwent helical CT dacryocystography, MR dacryocystography, or both. Eight of the 14 subjects underwent both techniques; three subjects underwent MR dacryocystography, and three subjects underwent CT dacryocystography. Images were evaluated by two radiologists for degree of visualization of components of the lacrimal drainage apparatus. Each volunteer was questioned about the relative discomfort of contrast material and saline solution administration. RESULTS: The lacrimal drainage system was seen on both CT dacryocystography and MR dacryocystography. CT dacryocystography allowed two-dimensional and three-dimensional reconstructions on which adjacent bone anatomy could be seen. The MR dacryocystography two-dimensional reconstructions and maximum intensity projections also showed the drainage apparatus. However, smaller drainage structures were more consistently seen on CT dacryocystography than on MR dacryocystography. Saline solution was more comfortable than contrast material. CONCLUSION: CT dacryocystography and MR dacryocystography reproducibly and non-invasively revealed the lacrimal drainage apparatus and allowed a better physiologic examination than cannulation dacryocystography. MR dacryocystography can be performed without administration of ionizing radiation or contrast material, but this technique cannot show adjacent bone anatomy and less consistently showed the smaller drainage structures than CT dacryocystography.