PROBING OUTCOMES FOR CONGENITAL NASOLACRIMAL DUCT OBSTRUCTION IN DUHOK CITY
Background: Epiphora is generally a common disorder in children particularly in infants; congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) is one of the most frequent causes of epiphora of newborns which symptoms start immediately or within first 2-3 week after birth as tearing and/or discharge of one or both eyes.
Aim: To report the success rate of probing and irrigation for children with CNLDO of different ages.
Methods and Materials: This is retrospective observational comparative study, which was held in Duhok eye hospital, 241 eyes from 209 children from with age range from 6 months to 9 years age, diagnosed as CNLDO included , probing and irrigation done under general anesthesia, according to age, the children were arranged into 4 groups, group I from 6 – 9 months, group II from 9 – 12 months, group III from 1 – 3 years and finally group IV from 3 – 9 years, mean age was 1.8 years.
Results: From 209 children 109 were females and 100 were male. 177 children have unilateral CNLDO and 32 children were having bilaterally obstructed nasolacrimal passage. The success rate was as follows; group 1 (94.6%), group 2 (89.3%), group 3 (81.6%) and group 4 (72.9%). And was defined as a complete resolution tearing and discharge.
Conclusion: Probing is the first surgical intervention for CNLDO not resolving with conservative treatment, despite the decrease in the success rate with increasing age it worthwhile to be the first procedure attempted to open the obstructed duct before proceeding to a more invasive procedure.
1. Ugurbas S. Otolaryngological findings in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and implications for prognosis. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2000;84(8):917-918.
2. Fundamentals and Principles of Ophthalmology, BCSC:2014-2015. [San Francisco]: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2014:28-29
3. Mukherjee P. Pediatric ophthalmology. New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers; 2005.
4. Honavar S, Prakash V, Rao G. Outcome of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in older children. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2000;130(1):42-48.
5. François J, Bacskulin J. External Congenital Fistulae of the Lacrimal Sac. Ophthalmologica. 1969;159(4-6):249-261.
6. Khurana A. Comprehensive ophthalmology. 4th ed. New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers; 2007:236.
7. Weber R, Della Rocca R, Keerl R, Schaefer S. Atlas of Lacrimal Surgery. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag GmbH.; 2007:12.
8. Nelson L, Olitsky S. Harley's Pediatric Ophthalmology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2015:335. –
9. MacEwen C, Young J, Barras C, Ram B, White P. Value of nasal endoscopy and probing in the diagnosis and management of children with congenital epiphora. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2001;85(3):314-318.
10. FREITAG S, WOOG J. CONGENITAL NASOLACRIMAL OBSTRUCTION. Ophthalmology Clinics of North America. 2000;13(4):705-718.
11. Agarwal A, Jacob S. Color atlas of ophthalmology. 2nd ed. New York [etc.]: Thieme; 2010:67.
12. Pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus, BCSC 2014-2015. [San Francisco]: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2014:234-236.
13. Hersh P,ZagelbaumB,CremersS, LhoweL.Ophthalmic surgical procedures.2nd ed.NewYork,NY:Thieme;2009:193-194
14. Rashid W, Shaheen N, Zargar S, Ganie M, Kounsar H. Outcome of Syringing and Probing In Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Children above Two Years of Age: A Prospective Study. Annals of International Medical and Dental Research. 2017;2(5):1-3.
15. Cha D, Lee H, Park M, Lee J, Baek S. Clinical Outcomes of Initial and Repeated Nasolacrimal Duct Office-Based Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. Korean Journal of Ophthalmology. 2010;24(5):261-266.
16. Hung C, Chen Y, Lin S, Chen W. Nasolacrimal Duct Probing under Topical Anesthesia for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Taiwan. Pediatrics & Neonatology. 2015;56(6):402-407.
17. MAHMOUD K, MOSTAFA Y. Results of Early Probing in Cases of Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. Medical Journal Cairo University. 2009;77(1):519-521
18. Perveen S, Sofi A, Rashid S, Khan A. Success Rate of Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction at Various Ages. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2014;9(1):60-69.
19. Abrishami M, Bagheri A, Salour S, Mirdehghan S. Late Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research. 2009;4(2):102-104.
20. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group*. Resolution of Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction with Nonsurgical Management. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2012;130(6).
21. Gul S, Dabir S, Jatoi S, Narsani A, Alam M. Efficacy of probing in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in three age groups. International Journal of Ophthalmology. 2009;2(1):70-73.
22. Syed S, Arif M, Mahmood M. Syringing and Probing Results for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. APMC. 2009;3(1):67-70.
23. Qamar R, Latif E, Tahir M, Moin M. Outcome of Delayed Lacrimal Probing in Congenital Obstruction of Nasolacrimal Duct. Pakistan Journal of Ophthalmology. 2011;27(4):175-179.
24. Sharife M, Uddin M, Ahmed M. Outcome of Probing for Congenital Naso-Lacrimal Duct Obstruction. Chattagram Maa-O-Shishu Hospital Medical College Journal. 2015;14(1):36-37.
25. Kashkouli M, Beigi B, Parvaresh M, Kassaee A, Tabataee Z. Late and very late initial probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: what is the cause of failure?. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2003;87(9):1151-1153.
26. Bahram Eshragi, Masoud Aghsaei Fard, Babak Masomian, Mohammadreza AkbariMiddle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2013 Oct-Dec; 20(4): 349–352.
27. Amir M, Ullah M. Comparative Study of Results of Probing and Syringing at Different Age Groups. Proceeding SZPGMI. 2012;26(2):99-102.
28. Maheshwari R, Maheshwari S. LATE PROBING FOR CONGENITAL NASOLACRIMAL DUCT OBSTRUCTION. JCPSP 2007. 2007;17(1):41-43.