Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Morphometric and morphological evaluation of the nasolacrimal groove in 150 dry bones in the Anatolian population

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pupose

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the anatomical features of the nasolacrimal groove in detail by providing a morphological classification based on morphometric evaluations of the nasolacrimal groove.

Methods

A total of 150 sagittal dry bones in the Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University were evaluated. The length and the width at different points of the nasolacrimal canal were calculated. According to the widths of the nasolacrimal canal ten different morphological types were revealed.

Results

The length of the canal was found as mean 13.62 ± 2.42 mm on the right and 12.44 ± 2.68 mm on the left side. The entrance, the base, the upper and the lower thirds of nasolacrimal canal were 6.22 ± 1.19 mm, 7.95 ± 1.85 mm, 5.85 ± 1.06 mm, 6.60 ± 1.54 mm, on the right and 6.08 ± 1.16 mm, 7.24 ± 1.64 mm, 5.45 ± 1.29 mm, 6.23 ± 1.48 mm, on the left side, respectively. The width of the entrance of the nasolacrimal canal was the narrowest width compared to the base, upper and lower thirds in 7/10 types of 71/150 cranial bones.

Conclusion

This comprehensive morphological classification of the nasolacrimal groove sheds new light on its complex variations. We support that the finding of this study has the potential to improve the precision of diagnostic assessments and guide specific therapeutic interventions for patients with lacrimal drainage disorders.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data related to the study can be obtained from the correspondig author (gkionoul.chatzioglou@istun.edu.tr) upon request.

Abbreviations

NG:

Nasolacrimal groove

eNG:

The entrance of the nasolacrimal groove

uNG:

Upper thirds of the nasolacrimal groove

lNG:

Lower thirds of the nasolacrimal groove

bNG:

The base of the nasolacrimal groove

References

  1. Ali MJ, Paulsen F (2020) Human lacrimal drainage system reconstruction, recanalization, and regeneration. Curr Eye Res 45:241–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02713683.2019.1580376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ali MJ, Psaltis AJ, Murphy J, Wormald PJ (2015) Powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: a decade of experience. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 31:219–221. https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0000000000000261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ali MJ (2023) Nasolacrimal duct coronary stent recanalization (NCR): first cadaver experience and its potential as an alternative to DCR. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 10:1097. https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0000000000002381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Avdagic E, Phelps PO (2020) Nasolacrimal duct obstruction as an important cause of epiphora. Dis Mon 66:101043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disamonth.2020.101043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boehm F, Friedrich DT, Sommer F et al (2020) Nasolacrimal duct stenosis—surgery with a novel robotic endoscope positioning system. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 16(6):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bothra N, Gupta N, Nowak R, Ali MJ (2020) The use of anterograde percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty balloons in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a cost-effective alternative to the traditional dacryoplasty balloons. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 36:302–304. https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0000000000001558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Coumou AD, Genders SW, Smid TM, Saeed P (2017) Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: long-term experience and outcomes. Acta Ophthalmol 95:74–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Francisco FC, Carvalho ACP, Francisco VFM, Francisco MC, Neto GT (2007) Evaluation of 1000 lacrimal ducts by dacryocystography. Br J Ophthalmol 91:43–46. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2005.088187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Groell R, Schaffler GJ, Uggowitzer M, Szolar DH, Muellner K (1997) CT-anatomy of the nasolacrimal sac and duct. Surg Radiol Anat 19:189–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01627974

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Groessl SA, Sires BS, Lemke BN (1997) An anatomical basis for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Arch Ophthalmol 115:71–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1997.01100150073012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huang J, Malek J, Chin D, Snidvongs K, Wilcsek G, Tumuluri K, Sacks R, Harvey RJ (2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis on outcomes for endoscopic versus external dacryocystorhinostomy. Orbit 33:81–90. https://doi.org/10.3109/01676830.2013.842253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ipek E, Esin K, Amac K, Mustafa G, Candan A (2007) Morphological and morphometric evaluation of lacrimal groove. Anat Sci Int 82:207–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-073X.2007.00185.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Javate RM (2022) Optimizing clinical outcomes for endoscopic lacrimal duct recanalization in patients with complete PANDO. Int Ophthalmol 43:175–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02414-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jawaheer L, MacEwen CJ, Anijeet D (2017) Endonasal versus external dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017:CD007097. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007097.pub3

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Kashkouli MB, Karimi N, Khademi B (2019) Surgical management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction; one procedure for all versus all procedures for one. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 30:364–371. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim YH, Park MG, Kim GC, Park BS, Kwak HH (2012) Topography of the nasolacrimal duct on the lateral nasal wall in Koreans. Surg Radiol Anat 34:249–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-011-0858-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McCormick A, Sloan B (2009) The diameter of the nasolacrimal canal measured by computed tomography: gender and racial differences. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 37:357–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02042.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nteli Chatzioglou G, Toklu E, Bayraktar E, Ertaş A, Kale A, Coşkun O, Ozturk A, Gayretli Ö (2023) Morphological and morphometric variations of the hyoid bone in anatolian population. Eur J Ther 29:508–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ogut E, Armagan K, Barut C (2021) Reappraisal of the types of trigeminal porus and importance in surgical applications. Surg Radiol Anat 43:1169–1178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-020-02651-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Orhan M, Govsa F, Saylam C (2009) Anatomical details used in the surgical reconstruction of the lacrimal canaliculus: cadaveric study. Surg Radiol Anat 31:745–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-009-0515-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ouyang GX, Bai F, Tao H (2023) Preliminary study on the efficacy of lacrimal duct reconstruction with pedicled conjunctival flap in the treatment of severe lacrimal canalicular obstruction with conjunctivochalasis. Int J Ophthalmol 16:539–546

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Roithmann R, Burman T, Wormald PJ (2012) Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 78(113):121. https://doi.org/10.5935/1808-8694.20120043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Santos-Fernandez J (1921) The measurements of the nasal canal according to the race. Am J Ophthalmol 4:32–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Srivatsan S, Mirza M, Imayama I, Setabutr P, Mahoney NR (2023) Use of a nasolacrimal stent to treat air regurgitation after dacryocystorhinostomy in a patient using a continuous positive airway pressure device. J Clin Sleep Med. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.10744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Standring S, Ellis H, Healy J et al (2005) Gray’s anatomy: the anatomical basis of clinical practice. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:2703

    Google Scholar 

  26. Takahashi Y, Nakamura Y, Nakano T et al (2013) The narrowest part of the bony nasolacrimal canal: an anatomical study. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 29:318–322. https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0b013e31828de0b0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Takahashi Y, Kakizaki H, Nakano T (2011) Bony nasolacrimal duct entrance diameter: gender difference in cadaveric study. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 27:204–205. https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0b013e3182078e47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tatlisumak E, Aslan A, Cömert A, Ozlugedik S, Acar HI, Tekdemir I (2010) Surgical anatomy of the nasolacrimal duct on the lateral nasal wall as revealed by serial dissections. Anat Sci Int 85:8–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12565-009-0044-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Van Swol JM, Myers WK, Nguyen SA, Eiseman AS (2023) Revision dacryocystorhinostomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Orbit 42:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/01676830.2022.2109178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Weinberg SM, Scott NM, Neiswanger K, Marazita ML (2005) Intraobserver error associated with measurements of the hand. Am J Hum Biol 17:368–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Yung MW, Hardman-Lea S (2002) Analysis of the results of surgical endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: effect of the level of obstruction. Br J Ophthalmol 86:792–794. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.86.7.792

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Zoumalan CI, Joseph JM, Lelli GJ Jr et al (2011) Evaluation of the canalicular entrance into the lacrimal sac: an anatomical study. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 27:298–303. https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0b013e31820d1f7b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul Health and Technology University, İmrahor St., Beyoglu, 34015, Istanbul, Turkey

    Gkionoul Nteli Chatzioglou

  2. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Vildan Önal & Özcan Gayretli

Authors
  1. Gkionoul Nteli Chatzioglou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vildan Önal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Özcan Gayretli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GNC, OG wrote the main manuscript text and VO prepared Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Table 1. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gkionoul Nteli Chatzioglou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethics committee approval of our study was received by the Istanbul Medical Faculty Clinical Research Ethics Committee (number:872856; date:29/04/2022).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nteli Chatzioglou, G., Önal, V. & Gayretli, Ö. Morphometric and morphological evaluation of the nasolacrimal groove in 150 dry bones in the Anatolian population. Surg Radiol Anat (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-024-03311-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-024-03311-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation