No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Evaluating the outcomes of children undergoing lacrimal surgery for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction with the aim of developing a patient pathway for children presenting to a tertiary paedatric service with epiphora
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2023
Abstract
Objective
Nasolacrimal duct obstruction is the most common cause of epiphora in children. Management has classically focused on probing and syringing followed by stent insertion and dacryocystorhinostomy either externally or endonasally. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of these procedures.
Methods
This was a retrospective analysis of the outcomes of all patients under the age of 16 who have undergone a surgical lacrimal intervention for nasolacrimal duct obstruction under general anaesthetic over a 10-year period. Outcomes included success rates and complications.
Results
A total of 432 patients were identified. Primary probe and syringing had a success rate of 83 per cent. Primary endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy had a success rate of 71 per cent, and revision surgery had a success rate of 82 per cent.
Conclusion
Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy is an effective and safe technique for the treatment of epiphora, and this study has provided a suggested protocol for management of patients presenting with epiphora.
- Type
- Main Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED
Footnotes
Dr P Sooby takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper
References
Perez, Y, Patel, BC, Mendez, MD. Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. Tampa: StatPearls Publishing, 2020Google Scholar
Vagge, A, Ferro Desideri, L, Nucci, P, Serafino, M, Giannaccare, G, Lembo, A et al. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO): a review. Diseases 2018;6:9610.3390/diseases6040096CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avram, E. Insights in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Romanian J Ophthalmol 2017;61:101–610.22336/rjo.2017.19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, WN. The child with epiphora. Paediatr Child Health 1999;4:32510.1093/pch/4.5.325CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maini, R, MacEwen, CJ, Young, JDH. The natural history of epiphora in childhood. Eye (Lond) 1998;12:669–7110.1038/eye.1998.166CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mac Ewen, CJ, Young, JDH. Epiphora during the first year of life. Eye (Lond) 1991;5:596–60010.1038/eye.1991.103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eyyup, OK, Durgul, K, Kusbeci, AT. The natural process of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and effect of lacrimal sac massage. Int Ophthalmol 2016;36:845–9Google Scholar
Gupta, N. Improving results in endoscopic DCR. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;63:40–410.1007/s12070-010-0112-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramkumar, VA, Agarkar, S, Mukherjee, B. Nasolacrimal duct obstruction: does it really increase the risk of amblyopia in children? Indian J Ophthalmol 2016;64:496Google ScholarPubMed
Matta, NS, Silbert, DI. High prevalence of amblyopia risk factors in preverbal children with nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 2011;15:350–210.1016/j.jaapos.2011.05.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ali, M. Pediatric dacryocystorhinostomy. Indian J Ophthalmol 2017;65:100810.4103/ijo.IJO_696_17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marr, JE, Drake-Lee, A, Willshaw, HE. Management of childhood epiphora. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:112310.1136/bjo.2005.069286CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, M, Lueder, G. Outcome of primary probing for simple membraneous congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children older than 4 years. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 2020;57:44–710.3928/01913913-20191125-01CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petris, C, Liu, D. Probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;(7):CD011109Google ScholarPubMed
Perveen, S, Sufi, AR, Rashid, S, Khan, A. Success rate of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction at various ages. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2014;9:60Google ScholarPubMed
Mann, BS, Wormald, PJ. Endoscopic assessment of the dacryocystorhinostomy ostium after endoscopic surgery. Laryngoscope 2006;116:1172–410.1097/01.mlg.0000218099.33523.19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ali, MJ, Psaltis, AJ, Wormald, PJ. Dacryocystorhinostomy ostium: parameters to evaluate and DCR ostium scoring. Clin Ophthalmol 2014;8:249110.2147/OPTH.S73998CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feng, YF, Cai, JQ, Zhang, JY, Han, XH. A meta-analysis of primary dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation. Can J Ophthalmol 2011;46:521–710.1016/j.jcjo.2011.09.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tai, ELM, Kueh, YC, Abdullah, B. The use of stents in children with nasolacrimal duct obstruction requiring surgical intervention: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:106710.3390/ijerph17031067CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarode, D, Bari, DA, Cain, AC, Syed, MI, Williams, AT. The benefit of silicone stents in primary endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Otolaryngol 2017;42:307–1410.1111/coa.12751CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsirbas, A, Wormald, PJ. Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with mucosal flaps. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;135:76–8310.1016/S0002-9394(02)01830-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takahashi, Y, Kakizaki, H, Chan, WO, Selva, D. Management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Acta Ophthalmol 2009;88:506–1310.1111/j.1755-3768.2009.01592.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, M, Wu, Q, Fan, Y, Cao, W, Lin, Q, Yu, G. Comparison of balloon catheter dilatation and silicon intubation as the secondary treatment for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction after failed primary probing. Chinese J Ophthalmol 2016;52:123–8Google ScholarPubMed