DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20203558

Role of nasolacrimal duct probing in pre-operative endo-dacryocystorhinostomy

Manish Munjal, Amanjot Kaur, Akashdeep Singh, G. S. Bajwa, Shubham Munjal, Vasu Bansal

Abstract


Background: Infection s and facial trauma are likely to disrupt the lacrimal flow in the region of the medial canthus. Individuals with epiphora refractory to topical medication and secondary to an obstructive aetiology were subjected to nasolacrimal duct probing prior to endo-nasal-dacrocystorhinostomy, to identify the likely site of obstruction, cannalicular, common cannalicus or in the nasolacrimal duct.

Methods: 40 adult subjects of long duration epiphora were selected from the outpatient clinics of otorhinolaryngology and opthalmology services of Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana.  

Results: On pre-operative lacrimal probing, the block was detected at a distance of greater than 3 cm in 26 sides (65%) and less than 3 cm in 14 sides (35%).

Conclusions: In patients of epiphora, the naso-lacrimal system had an obstruction, in the duct and usually at a distance of greater than 3 cm from the punctum.


Keywords


Probing, Naso-lacrimal system, Block, Epiphora

Full Text:

PDF

References


Toti A. Nuovo metodo conservatore dicuraradicale delle suppurazione croniche del saccolacrimale (dacricistorhinostomia). Clin Moderna (Firenza). 1904;10:385.

Cassady JV. Developmental anatomy of the nasolacrimal duct. Arch Ophthalmol. 1952;47:141-58.

Grossman TH, Putz R. Uber die angeborenetranengangstenose der neugebornenen .ihreanatomie, ihrefolgen und bahandlung. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1972;160:563-74.

Schwartz M. Congenital atresia of the nasolacrimal canal. Arch. Opthal. 1935;13:301-2.

MacEwen CJ, Young JD, Barras CW, Ram B, White PS. Value of nasal endoscopy and probing in the diagnosis and management of children with congenital epiphora. Br.J.Opthalmol. 2001;85:314-8.

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;9:60-9.

Cuthbertson FM, Webber S. Assessment of functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction-a survey of ophthalmologists in the south east. Eye (Lone). 2004;18:20-3.

Munk PL, Lin DT, Morris DC. Epiphora: treatment by means of dacryocystoplasty with balloon dilation of the nasolacrimal drainage apparatus. Radiology. 1990;177:687-9.

Sahlin S, Rose GE. Lacrimal drainage capacity and symptomatic improvement after dacryocystorhinostomy in adults presenting with patent lacrimal drainage systems. Orbit. 2001;20:173-9.

Orge FH, Boente CS. The lacrimal system pediatric clinics of North America. 2014;61(3):529-39.

Kim YS, Moon SC, Yoo KW. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: irrigation or probing?. Korean J Opthalmol. 2000;14(2):90-6.

Qin X, Dan H, Xu G. Tobramycin/dexamethasone eye drops as better choice for lacrimal duct probing in persistent congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a consort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(6):141-88.

Guinot A, Saera A, Koay P. Efficacy of probing as treatment of epiphora in adults with blocked naasolacrimal ducts. Br L Opthalmol. 1998;82(4):389-91.

Tsai CC, Kau HC, Kao SC, Hsu WM, Liu JH. Efficacy of probing the nasolacrimal duct with adjunctive mitomycin-C for epiphora in adults. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(1):172-4.

Kashkouli MB, Kassaee A, Tabatabaee Z. Initial nasolacrimal duct probing in children under age 5: cure rate and factors affecting success. J Am Association Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2002;6:360-3.

Le Garrec J, Abadie-Koebele C, Parienti JJ, Molgat Y, Degoumois A, Mouriaux F. Naolacrimal duct oddice probing in children under the age of 12 months-cure rate and cost evaluation. J Fr Opthalmol. 2018;39:171-7 .

Wearne MJ, Pitts J, Frank J, Rose GE. Comparison of dacryocystography and lacrimal scintigraphy in the diagnosis of functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:1032-5.

Rossomondo RM, Carlton WH, Trueblood JH, Thomas RP. A new method of evaluating lacrimal drainage. Arch opthalmol. 1972;88:523-5.