The effect of cesarean section on the incidence of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of cesarean section (CS) on the incidence and recovery of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO).

Methods: The files of patients diagnosed with CNLDO, epiphora, and dacryocystitis under the age of 24 months were identified retrospectively. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to whether they were born via normal vaginal delivery (VD) or CS. Demographic data, gestational age, birth weight, application of lacrimal massage, and surgical treatment modalities were recorded from medical records.

Results: The study included 173 consecutive patients, 68 were females and 105 were males. Eighty-two (47.4%) patients were born via VD and 91 (52.6%) patients were born via CS. The frequency of CS delivery in children with CNLDO (47.4%) was significantly higher than the same hospital’s total frequency of CS delivery (40.2%) (χ2 = 11, df = 1, p = 0.001). At presentation, the mean age of the patients born via CS was lower than patients born via VD (9.4 ± 6.8 months vs 12.07 ± 8.8 months) (p = 0.027). In 40 patients who had a family history of CNLDO, 23 patients recovered through non-surgical treatment, while 17 patients had a surgical intervention, which was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.009). The gestational age and birth weight of patients born via CS were significantly lower than patients born via VD (p < 0.001 and p = 0.01, respectively).

Conclusions: Cesarean section delivery could increase the incidence of CNLDO.

Keywords

• congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction
• vaginal delivery
• cesarean section

References

1. 1. Kendig EL Jr, Guerry D 3rd. The incidence of congenital impotency of the nasolacrimal duct. J Pediatr 1950;36:212.
2. 2. MacEwen CJ, Young JD. Epiphora during the first year of life. Eye (Lond) 1991;5:596-600.
3. 3. Sevel D. Development and congenital abnormalities of the nasolacrimal apparatus. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1981;18:13-9.
4. 4. Olitsky, S.E. Update on congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2014;4:1-7.
5. 5. Moscato, EE, Kelly JP, Weiss A. Developmental anatomy of the nasolacrimal duct: Implications for congenital obstruction. Ophthalmology 2010;117:2430-4.
6. 6. Weiss, AH, Bran, F, Kelly J. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: Delineation of anatomic abnormalities with 3-dimensional reconstruction. Arch Ophthalmol 2012;130:842-8.
7. 7. Ghuman T, Gonzales C, Mazow ML. Treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Am Orthoptic J 1999;49:163-8.
8. 8. Nelson LB, Calhoun JH, Menduke H. Medical management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology 1985;92:1187-90.

9. 9. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Resolution of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction with nonsurgical management. Arch Ophthalmol 2012;130:730-4.
10. 10. Yazici B, Akarsu C, Salkaya M. Silicone intubation with the Ritleng method in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 2006;10:328-32.
11. 11. Kulas T, Bursac D, Zegarac Z, Rados GP, Hrgovic Z. New views on cesarean section: its possible complications and long-term consequences for children’s health. Med Arch 2013;67:460-3.
12. 12. Spaniol K, Stupp T, Melcher C, Beheiri N, Eter N, Prokosch V. Association between congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and delivery by cesarean section. Am J Perinatol 2015;32:271-6.
13. 13. Tavakoli M, Osigian CJ, Saksiriwutto P, Reyes-Capo DP, Choi CJ, Vanner EA, et al. Association between congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and mode of delivery at birth. J AAPOS 2018;22:381-5.
14. 14. Dolar Bilge A. Mode of delivery, birth weight and the incidence of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Int J Ophthalmol 2019;12: 1134-8.
15. 15. Kuhli-Hattenbach C, Lüchtenberg M, Hofmann C, Kohnen T. Increased prevalence of congenital dacryostenosis following cesarean section. Ophthalmologe 2016;113:675-83.
16. 16. Palo M, Gupta S, Naik MN, Ali MJ. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and its association with the mode of birth. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 2018;55:266-8.
17. 17. Alakuş MF, Dağ U, Balsak S, Erdem S, Oncul E, Akgol S, et al. Is there an association between congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and cesarean delivery? Eur J Ophthalmol 2020;30:122831.
18. 18. Yildiz A. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: caesarean section vs. vaginal delivery. Med Glas 2018;15:164-7.
19. 19. Boyle A, Reddy UM. Epidemiology of cesarean delivery: the scope of the problem. Semin Perinatol 2012;36:308-14.
20. 20. Aksoy H, Özyurt S, Aksoy Ü, Acmaz G, Karadağ OI, Babayigit A. [Overview to cesarean birth in Turkey in accordance with cesarean rate and indications in our hospital]. Med J Kocaeli 2014;3:1-7. [Article in Turkish]
21. 21. Richardson BS, Czikk MJ, Silva O, Natale R. The impact of labor at term on measures of neonatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:219-26.
22. 22. Jain L. Alveolar fluid clearance in developing lungs and its role in neonatal transition. Clin Perinatol 1999;26:585-99.
23. 23. Pu F, Xu L, Li D, Li S, Sun L, Lang W, et al. Effect of different labor forces on fetal skull molding. Med Eng Phys 2011;33:620-5.
24. 24. Gray LP. Septal and associated cranial birth deformities, types and incidence and treatment. Med J Aust 1974;1:557-63.
25. 25. Karti O, Karahan E, Acan D, Kusbeci T. The natural process of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and effect of lacrimal sac massage. Int Ophthalmol 2016;36:845-9.
26. 26. Erdem E, Tok Ö, Kocaoğlu FA, Kocaoglu FA, Nurozler AB, Örnek F. [The timing of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction]. Turk J Ophthalmol 2008;38:180-4. [Article in Turkish]
27. 27. Esen E, Özcan AA, Erdem E, Ciloğlu E, Şimdivar HG. [The effectiveness of probing for the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction]. Turk J Ophthalmol 2012;42:342-5. [Article in Turkish]
28. 28. Katowitz JA, Welsh MG. Timing of initial probing and irrigation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology 1987;94:698-705.