Re-probing Causes in Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstructions
Abstract
Objective: It was aimed to show the factors leading to failure of first probing, necessitating second probing application.
Materials and Methods: In this retrospective case series, patients diagnosed with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) between January 2010 and December 2019 and treated with a nasolacrimal duct (NLD) probe were included. The files of patients diagnosed with CNLDO and treated with NLD probing between these years at XX University were reviewed. Patients characteristics including sex, age, consultation notes, operation records, re-probing number and existence of systemic disease were recorded.
Results: A total of 110 patients were recruited into the study finally. The mean age of patients was 17.55±5.40 (9-34) months and 46 female (41.8%), 64 male (58.2%). While the ninety three patients (84.5%) showing improvement of symptoms after the first probing considered successful, 17 patients (15.5%) having smilar symptoms regarded failed probing. Grouping patients with age less than ≤18 months or more had similar success rates with regard to probing success (p=0.250). No difference in success rate was found for gender (p=0.953) and laterality (p=0.116). Local diseases (nasal cavity problems, canalicular narrowing, anatomical variation etc.) were detected in 14 patients, who have been planned for secondary probing.
Conclusion: Our study is in congruity with other studies claiming no effect of sex, age or laterality on probing success. If first probing fails, a thorough management plan including also exploration and handling of reasons underlying the first failure should be implemented before second probing.
Keywords
Kaynakça
- 1. Olitsky SE. Update on congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2014;54(3):1-7.
- 2. Takahashi Y, Kakizaki H, Chan WO, Selva D. Management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Acta Ophthalmol. 2010;88(5):506-13.
- 3. Avram E. Insights in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Rom J Ophthalmol. 2017;61(2):101-6.
- 4. 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(6):845-9.
- 5. Vagge A, FerroDesideri L, Nucci P, Serafino M, Giannaccare G, Lembo A, et al. Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction (CNLDO): A Review. Diseases. 2018;6(4):96.
- 6. 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(3):1067.
- 7. Rahim S, Nanda R, Gupta D. Result of Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Children Less than 1 Year Versus Children Greater than 1 Year. JK Science. 2019;21(4):156-9.
- 8. Perveen S, Sufi AR, Rashid S, Khan A. Success rate of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction at variousages. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2014;9(1):60-9.
- 9. Rajabi MT, Abrishami Y, Hosseini SS, Tabatabaee SZ, Rajabi MB, Hurwitz JJ. Success rate of late primary probing in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2014;51(6):360-2.
- 10. Yılmaz T, Yılmaz A, Kırgız A, Taskapılı M. The efficacy and safety of probing as a treatment procedure for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Istanbul Med J. 2013;14(3):191-4.