Advertisement

Value of ultrasound biomicroscopy in assessment of small masses at medial canthal region

  • Qian Chen
  • Ruiqi Ma
  • Lu Gan
  • Hui Ren
  • Yifei YuanEmail author
Oculoplastics and Orbit
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Conventional imaging techniques are not sensitive enough to reveal detailed structures of lacrimal drainage system (LDS) and its surrounding tissue (ST). Our study aimed to explore utility of ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) in assessment of small masses at the medial canthal region and compare performance of UBM with conventional imaging techniques.

Methods

We prospectively recruited cases with small mass (long axis < 1 cm) at the medial canthal region (upper LDS-located area) from June 2017 to October 2018. UBM ± color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) and conventional imaging techniques (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and dacryocystography) were conducted by four independent practitioners. Results were analyzed against gold standards with Cohen’s kappa test in three aspects including LDS patency, mass location, and presumptive diagnosis. Corresponding gold standards were syringe and dacryocystography, intraoperative findings, and pathological/empirical diagnosis.

Results

Seventy-two cases were recruited, including 20 cases of LDS lesions and 52 cases of ST lesions. Female (odds ratio 7.14) and age ≥ 37 (odds ratio 9.80) were risk factors for LDS lesion, and age range of 15–25 (odds ratio 9.17) was a risk factor for inflammatory ST lesion. In terms of LDS patency, UBM results were reliable for the detection of pre-saccal obstruction (kappa = 0.920), but were not reliable for intra-saccal and post-saccal obstruction (kappa = 0.106). In terms of mass location, the UBM (kappa = 0.766) performed better than conventional techniques (except for dacryocystography) to sort out ST lesions, with sensitivity of 93.8% and specificity of 83.3%. In terms of diagnosis, the UBM (kappa = 0.882) outweighed conventional techniques (except for magnetic resonance imaging) to distinguish cysts from nodules, with sensitivity of 93.8% and specificity of 94.4%. Notably, the UBM + CDFI achieved better performance than the UBM when screen out inflammatory lesions (kappa = 0.926 vs kappa = 0.689) and LDS-adjacent lesions (kappa = 0.815 vs kappa = 0.673), resulting in sensitivity of 91.7% and specificity of 100% for both testing items. If deep lesions (at the lacrimal sac–harbored area) were excluded, UBM reliability to detect inflammatory lesions (kappa = 0.915) and LDS-adjacent lesions (kappa = 0.770) improved, achieving sensitivity of 90.0% and 88.9%, and specificity of 100.0% and 92.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

The UBM is a valuable tool to assess superficial masses at the medial canthal region regarding pre-saccal obstruction, mass location, and presumptive diagnosis.

Trial registration

This work was registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry website with registration number ChiCTR1800018956.

Keywords

Ultrasound biomicroscopy Color Doppler flow imaging Lacrimal drainage system Medial canthus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Yue Geng (Fudan Eye & ENT Hospital) for performing DCG imaging, Dr. Yichen Li (Fudan Eye & ENT Hospital) for performing CT scan, and Dr. Shenjiang Wang (Fudan Eye & ENT Hospital) for performing MRI scan.

Author contributions

Q.C., R.M., and Y.Y. conceived and designed research; H.R. served as scientific advisor; Y.Y. critically reviewed the study proposal; Q.C. and R.M. collected and analyzed the data; L.G. provided and cared for study patients; R.M. drafted the manuscript; Q.C., L.G., H.R. and Y.Y. edited and revised the manuscript; Q.C., R.M., L.G., H.R., and Y.Y. approved final version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 81800867).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Declaration

Authors declare no financial relationship with the organization that sponsored the research. Authors have full control of all primary data and agree to allow Graefes Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology to review the primary data upon request.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in the manuscript are authors’ own and not an official position of the institution or funder.

References

  1. 1.
    Santamaria JA, Gallagher CF, Mehta A, Davies BW (2018) Fibrous histiocytoma of the lacrimal sac in an 11-year-old male. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 34:e90–e91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sabundayo MS, Takahashi Y, Kakizaki H (2018) Lacrimal sac lymphoma: a series of Japanese patients. Eur J Ophthalmol.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672118803510
  3. 3.
    Kim NJ, Choung HK, Khwarg SI (2009) Management of dermoid tumor in the medial canthal area. Korean J Ophthalmol 23:204–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Obi EE, Olurin O, Mota PM, Sipkova Z, Vonica O, Pearson AR (2018) Assessment of lacrimal resistance using a manometric tear duct irrigation system. Orbit 37:273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Enright NJ, Brown SJ, Rouse HC, McNab AA, Hardy TG (2018) Nasolacrimal sac diverticulum: a case series and literature review. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0000000000001156
  6. 6.
    Kumar VA, Esmaeli B, Ahmed S, Gogia B, Debnam JM, Ginsberg LE (2016) Imaging features of malignant lacrimal sac and nasolacrimal duct tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:2134–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nagi KS, Meyer DR (2010) Utilization patterns for diagnostic imaging in the evaluation of epiphora due to lacrimal obstruction: a National Survey. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 26:168–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yuan MK, Tsai DC, Chang SC, Yuan MC, Chang SJ, Chen HW, Leu HB (2013) The risk of cataract associated with repeated head and neck CT studies: a nationwide population-based study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:626–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen JX, Kachniarz B, Gilani S, Shin JJ (2014) Risk of malignancy associated with head and neck CT in children: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 151:554–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stupp T, Pavlidis M, Busse H, Thanos S (2004) Presurgical and postsurgical ultrasound assessment of lacrimal drainage dysfunction. Am J Ophthalmol 138:764–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zaidman CM, Seelig MJ, Baker JC, Mackinnon SE, Pestronk A (2013) Detection of peripheral nerve pathology: comparison of ultrasound and MRI. Neurology 80:1634–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Al-Faky YH (2011) Anatomical utility of ultrasound biomicroscopy in the lacrimal drainage system. Br J Ophthalmol 95:1446–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mishra K, Hu KY, Kamal S, Andron A, Della Rocca RC, Ali MJ, Nair AG (2017) Dacryolithiasis: a review. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 33:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tao H, Xu LP, Han C, Wang P, Bai F (2014) Diagnosis of lacrimal canalicular diseases using ultrasound biomicroscopy: a preliminary study. Int J Ophthalmol 7:659–662Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pavlidis M, Stupp T, Grenzebach U, Busse H, Thanos S (2005) Ultrasonic visualization of the effect of blinking on the lacrimal pump mechanism. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:228–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maliborski A, Różycki R (2014) Diagnostic imaging of the nasolacrimal drainage system. Part I. Radiological anatomy of lacrimal pathways. Physiology of tear secretion and tear outflow. Med Sci Monit 20:628–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lachmund U, Ammann-Rauch D, Forrer A, Petralli C, Remonda L, Roeren T, Vonmoos F, Wilhelm K (2005) Balloon catheter dilatation of common canaliculus stenoses. Orbit 24:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vonica OA, Obi E, Sipkova Z, Soare C, Pearson AR (2017) The value of lacrimal scintillography in the assessment of patients with epiphora. Eye 31:1020–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coskun B, Ilgit E, Onal B, Konuk O, Erbas G (2012) MR dacryocystography in the evaluation of patients with obstructive epiphora treated by means of interventional radiologic procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Freitag SK, Woog JJ, Kousoubris PD, Curtin HD (2002) Helical computed tomographic dacryocystography with three-dimensional reconstruction-a new view of the lacrimal drainage system. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 18:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tschopp M, Bornstein MM, Sendi P, Jacobs R, Goldblum D (2014) Dacryocystography using cone beam CT in patients with lacrimal drainage system obstruction. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 30:486–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patella F, Panella S, Zannoni S, Jannone ML, Pesapane F, Angileri SA, Sbaraini S, Ierardi AM, Soldi S, Franceschelli G, Carrafiello G (2018) The role of interventional radiology in the treatment of epiphora. Gland Surg 7:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lindsley K, Nichols JJ, Dickersin K (2017) Non-surgical interventions for acute internal hordeolum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD007742Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fayet B, Racy E, Assouline M, Zerbib M (2005) Surgical anatomy of the lacrimal fossa a prospective computed tomodensitometry scan analysis. Ophthalmology 112:1119–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Watanabe M, Buch K, Fujita A, Jara H, Qureshi MM, Sakai O (2017) Quantitative MR imaging of intra-orbital structures: tissue-specific measurements and age dependency compared to extra-orbital structures using multispectral quantitative MR imaging. Orbit 36:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang J, Chen L, Wang QX, Liu R, Zhu WZ, Luo X, Peng L, Xiong W (2015) Isotropic three-dimensional fast spin-echo cube magnetic resonance dacryocystography: comparison with the three-dimensional fast-recovery fast spin-echo technique. Neuroradiology 57:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Higashi H, Tamada T, Mizukawa K, Ito K (2016) MR dacryocystography: comparison with dacryoendoscopy in positional diagnosis of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Radiol Med 121:580–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sagili S, Selva D, Malhotra R (2012) Lacrimal scintigraphy: “interpretation more art than science”. Orbit 31:77–85Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shams PN, Chen PG, Wormald PJ, Sloan B, Wilcsek G, McNab A, Selva D (2014) Management of functional epiphora in patients with an anatomically patent dacryocystorhinostomy. JAMA Ophthalmol 132:1127–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Al-Faky YH (2013) Physiological utility of ultrasound biomicroscopy in the lacrimal drainage system. Br J Ophthalmol 97:1325–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qian Chen
    • 1
  • Ruiqi Ma
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lu Gan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hui Ren
    • 1
  • Yifei Yuan
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyFudan Eye and ENT HospitalShanghaiChina
  2. 2.NHC Key Laboratory of MyopiaFudan UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Laboratory of MyopiaChinese Academy of Medical SciencesShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations