Nasal endoscopy-guided primary nasolacrimal duct intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children older than 4 years

被引:3
作者
Arici, Ceyhun [1 ]
Oto, Bilge Batu [1 ]
机构
[1] Istanbul Univ Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Med Fac, Dept Ophthalmol, TR-34098 Istanbul, Turkey
关键词
Bicanalicular intubation; Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction; Nasal endoscopy; Silicone intubation; BICANALICULAR SILICONE INTUBATION; SUCCESS RATES;
D O I
10.1007/s10792-022-02503-2
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose To evaluate the clinical outcomes of endoscopic guided primary bicanalicular intubation (BCI) for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) in children older than 4 years. Methods A total of 40 eyes from 33 children (18 males, 15 females) with CNLDO who underwent bicanalicular intubation were evaluated. The type of CNLDO was determined by endonasal endoscopic visualisation. The mean silicone tube removal time was 4.3 +/- 0.9 months (ranging from 3 to 6 months). The children were followed up for 6 months after the removal of tubes. Therapeutic success was defined as the normal result of the fluorescein dye disappearance test and complete resolution of previous lacrimal symptoms and signs. Results The median age was 80 [48] (range 48-156) months. Treatment success was achieved in 32 of 40 eyes (80.0%). A statistically significant correlation was observed between the age and success rate (p = 0.006). The success rate was lower in older children. Membranous type of CNLDO was observed in 47.5% (19/40) of the cases. The median age of patients with a membranous and complex type of CNLDO were 60 [30] months and 96 [53] months, respectively. Surgical success was 100% in the membranous type of CNLDO and 61.9% in the complex CNLDO group. Conclusions Primary BCI using nasal endoscopic visualisation has a favourably high success rate for treating CNLDO in children aged 4 to 13 years. Treatment success was found to be related to both the type of CNLDO and age.
引用
收藏
页码:1005 / 1011
页数:7
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]   A prospective, randomised comparison of probing versus bicanalicular silastic intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction [J].
Al-Faky, Yasser H. ;
Mousa, Ahmed ;
Kalantan, Hatem ;
Al-Otaibi, Abdullah ;
Alodan, Hessah ;
Alsuhaibani, Adel H. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2015, 99 (02) :246-250
[2]   Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular silicone intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction [J].
Andalib, Dima ;
Gharabaghi, Davood ;
Nabai, Reza ;
Abbaszadeh, Mohammad .
JOURNAL OF AAPOS, 2010, 14 (05) :421-424
[3]   Comparison of Endoscopically Assisted Primary Probing and Bicanalicular Silicone Intubation for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Children Aged 4 to 7 Years [J].
Arici, Ceyhun ;
Mergen, Burak ;
Ozan, Tuna ;
Oto, Bilge Batu .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OPHTHALMOLOGY & STRABISMUS, 2023, 60 (02) :101-107
[4]  
Baker J D, 1985, J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus, V22, P34
[5]   Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction update study (CUP study): Paper II - Profile and outcomes of complex CNLDO and masquerades [J].
Bansal, Oshin ;
Bothra, Nandini ;
Sharma, Abhimanyu ;
Ali, Mohammad Javed .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, 2020, 139
[6]   Endoscopically assisted Crawford tube placement results in shorter general anesthesia times in pediatric patients [J].
Dobberpuhl, Mitchell R. ;
Timoney, Peter J. ;
Comer, Brett T. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RHINOLOGY & ALLERGY, 2018, 32 (01) :31-33
[7]  
Eshraghi B, 2017, ORBIT, V36, P215, DOI 10.1080/01676830.2017.1337161
[8]   The Treatment of Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Children: A Retrospective Review [J].
Eustis, H. Sprague ;
Nguyen, An H. .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OPHTHALMOLOGY & STRABISMUS, 2018, 55 (01) :65-67
[9]  
Fayet B., 1993, ORBIT-ABINGDON, V12, DOI [10.3109/01676839309019115, DOI 10.3109/01676839309019115]
[10]   Success rates of dacryoendoscopy-guided probing for recalcitrant congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction [J].
Fujimoto, Masahiro ;
Ogino, Ken ;
Matsuyama, Hiroko ;
Miyazaki, Chika .
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2016, 60 (04) :274-279