Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Success rates of dacryoendoscopy-guided probing for recalcitrant congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Our aim was to review the success rates of dacryoendoscopy-guided probing for recalcitrant congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO).

Methods

We reviewed the medical records of 498 patients (521 eyes) diagnosed with CNLDO between January 2011 and November 2013. Of these, 54 eyes met the eligibility criteria and underwent probing with a dacryoendoscope.

Results

Of the 54 eyes, 21 were classified as failed cases at other hospitals, 13 as cases requiring conversion from blind to dacryoendoscopy-guided probing during surgery at our hospital, and 20 as cases requiring intervention under general anesthesia because of difficulty with topical anesthesia. The overall success rate with dacryoendoscopy was 98.1 % (53/54 eyes) at postoperative week 2 and 97.1 % (33/34 eyes) a year after surgery. Among the cases that failed at other hospitals, one showed the formation of five false passages in the middle area of the nasolacrimal duct. In 11 eyes, slit-like adhesion was confirmed as a blurred linear line at the distal end of the nasolacrimal duct. Patency could be smoothly achieved by releasing the adhesion.

Conclusions

Our study showed a high success rate for dacryoendoscopy-guided probing in CNLDO patients. The use of a dacryoendoscope allows direct visualization of the lacrimal passage and is likely to become necessary for managing CNLDO.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Robb RM. Success rates of nasolacrimal duct probing at time intervals after 1 year of age. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1307–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kapadia MK, Freitag SK, Woog JJ. Evaluation and management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Otolaryngol Clin N Am. 2006;39:959–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kakizaki H, Takahashi Y, Kinoshita S, Shiraki K, Iwaki M. The rate of symptomatic improvement of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in Japanese infants treated with conservative management during the 1st year of age. Clin Ophthalmol. 2008;2:291–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Nucci P, Capoferri C, Alfarano R, Brancato R. Conservative management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1989;26:39–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Petersen RA, Robb RM. The natural course of congenital obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1978;15:246–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Miller AM, Chandler DL, Repka MX, Hoover DL, Lee KA, Melia M, et al. Office probing for treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction in infants. J AAPOS. 2014;18:26–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Zwaan J. Treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction before and after the age of 1 year. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1997;28:932–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Repka MX, Chandler DL, Beck RW, Crouch ER 3rd, Donahue S, Holmes JM, et al. Primary treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction with probing in children younger than 4 years. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:577–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Honavar SG, Prakash VE, Rao GN. Outcome of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in older children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130:42–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cha DS, Lee H, Park MS, Lee JM, Baek SH. Clinical outcomes of initial and repeated nasolacrimal duct office-based probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2010;24:261–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Katowitz JA, Welsh MG. Timing of initial probing and irrigation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology. 1987;94:698–705.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mannor GE, Rose GE, Frimpong-Ansah K, Ezra E. Factors affecting the success of nasolacrimal duct probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127:616–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kashkouli MB, Beigi B, Parvaresh MM, Kassaee A, Tabatabaee Z. Late and very late initial probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: what is the cause of failure? Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:1151–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kushner BJ. The management of nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children between 18 months and 4 years old. J AAPOS. 1998;2:57–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Medghalchi A, Mohammadi MJ, SoltaniMoghadam R, Dalili H. Results of nasolacrimal duct probing in children between 9–48 months. Acta Med Iran. 2014;52:545–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Al-Faky YH, Mousa A, Kalantan H, Al-Otaibi A, Alodan H, Alsuhaibani AH. A prospective, randomised comparison of probing versus bicanalicular silastic intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99:246–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Andalib D, Nabei R. Intraoperative prognostic factors for probing outcome in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2013;23:329–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maheshwari R. Success rate and cause of failure for late probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2008;45:168–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Takahashi Y, Iwaki M, Nakamura Y, Kakizaki H. Dacryoendoscopic findings of intracanalicular punctal plug migration with or without canaliculitis. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;29:128–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sasaki T, Sounou T, Sugiyama K. Dacryoendoscopic surgery and tube insertion in patients with common canalicular obstruction and ductal stenosis as a frequent complication. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2009;53:145–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sasaki T, Nagata Y, Sugiyama K. Nasolacrimal duct obstruction classified by dacryoendoscopy and treated with inferior meatal dacryorhinotomy: part II. Inferior meatal dacryorhinotomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140:1070–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Theodoropoulou S, Sutherland MS, Haddow K, Blaikie A. Success rates of endoscopic-assisted probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children. J Laryngol Otol. 2013;127:794–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kato K, Matsunaga K, Takashima Y, Kondo M. Probing of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction with dacryoendoscope. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:977–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Young JD, MacEwen CJ. Managing congenital lacrimal obstruction in general practice. BMJ. 1997;315:293–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. MacEwen CJ, Young JD. The fluorescein disappearance test (FDT): an evaluation of its use in infants. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1991;28:302–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Weiss AH, Baran F, Kelly J. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: delineation of anatomic abnormalities with 3-dimensional reconstruction. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130:842–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee H, Ha S, Lee Y, Park M, Baek S. Anatomical and morphometric study of the bony nasolacrimal canal using computed tomography. Ophthalmologica. 2012;227:153–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Abrishami M, Bagheri A, Salour SH, Mirdehghan SA. Late probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2009;4:102–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Alanon-Fernandez MA, Alanon-Fernandez FJ, Martinez-Fernandez A, del Mar Gorgora M, Calero B, Lopez-Marin I, et al. Comparative study of primary intention lacrimal probing with and without nasal endoscopy. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2014;65:297–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Editage (http://www.editage.jp) for English language editing.

Conflicts of interest

M. Fujimoto, None; K. Ogino, None; H. Matsuyama, None; C. Miyazaki, None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Shogoin-Kawaracho, Sakyou, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan

    Masahiro Fujimoto & Ken Ogino

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Shizuoka General Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan

    Hiroko Matsuyama

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Hyogo, Japan

    Chika Miyazaki

  4. Department of Ophthalmology, Hyogo Prefectural Tsukaguchi Hospital, Hyogo, Japan

    Masahiro Fujimoto & Chika Miyazaki

Authors
  1. Masahiro Fujimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ken Ogino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroko Matsuyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chika Miyazaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masahiro Fujimoto.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fujimoto, M., Ogino, K., Matsuyama, H. et al. Success rates of dacryoendoscopy-guided probing for recalcitrant congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Jpn J Ophthalmol 60, 274–279 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-016-0445-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-016-0445-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation