Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-operative evaluation of obstructive epiphora: true-FISP and VIBE vs gadolinium

  • MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess unenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the preoperative evaluation of obstructive epiphora in patients undergoing dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) and in particular, to evaluate the efficacy of this technique in the detection of the exact level of obstruction occurring in the naso-lachrymal duct (NLD). The correct identification and characterization of the NLD and its obstructions lead to a more effective surgery, preventing recurrent dacryocystitis after the surgical treatment.

Methods

From January 2009 to December 2014, 127 obstructive epiphoras were diagnosed and treated in 127 patients (35 M, 92 F; mean age 60.7 ± 7.48 years, range 42–75 years) with endoscopic DCR, in a IRB-approved protocol. To precisely define the morphology of the NLD and the site of obstruction, some of these patients (67/127) underwent unenhanced 1.5-T MR with TrueFISP and VIBE sequences, while the remaining (60/127) underwent Gadolinium-enhanced 1.5-T MR. Afterwards, surgery checked the real site of obstruction in both groups of patients (enhanced and unenhanced MR), with surgical outcomes matched with previous MR reports.

Results

In all cases, unenhanced MRI was able to detect the exact site of obstruction along the NLD, allowing a correct planning of surgical endoscopic procedures. On the contrary, enhanced MRI wrongly diagnosed six patients with proximal stenosis (6/60, 10.0%) as intermediate NLD obstruction. Unenhanced MRI was found to be more accurate than enhanced MRI with a statistical significant difference (p value = 0.0256) and obviously cheaper and easier to perform. All imaging reports were verified with surgery. The correct identification of the level of obstruction allowed successful surgery in around 73% (93/127) of patients, who had no recurrence during 6-month follow-up.

Conclusion

In patients with epiphora, unenhanced MR showed to be highly reliable and even more effective than enhanced MR in the preoperative characterization of NLD stenosis, with no need of performing complex, time-wasting and expensive procedures for the administration of topical contrast media.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Choi CJ, Jin HR, Moon YE et al (2009) The surgical outcome of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy according to the obstruction levels of lacrimal drainage system. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2:141–144

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Christensen AL, Hansen PO, Jørgensen BG, Autzen T (2013) Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy seems promising for lacrimal stenosis. Dan Med J 60(2):A4581

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tarbet KJ, Custer PL (1995) External dacryocystorhinostomy. Surgical success, patient satisfaction and economic cost. Ophthalmology 102:1065–1070

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Preechawai P (2012) Results of nonendoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Clin Ophtalmol 6(1):1297–1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Serifoglu A, Karakurt A (1988) Can. Secondary dacryocystorhinostomy in cases of unsuccessful lacrimal surgery. Turkish J Ophtalmol 18:573–579

    Google Scholar 

  6. Manfrè L, de Maria M, Todaro E, Mangiameli A, Ponte F, Lagalla R (2000) MR dacryocystography: comparison with dacryocystography and CT dacryocystography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21(6):1145–1150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dutton JJ (1988) Diagnostic tests and imaging techniques. In: Linberg JV (ed) Lacrimal surgery. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 19–48

    Google Scholar 

  8. Glatt HJ, Chan CA, Barrett L (1991) Evaluation of dacryocystorhinostomy failure with computed tomography and computed tomographic dacryocystography. Am J Ophthalmol 112:431–433

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ashenhurst M, Jaffer N, Hurwitz JJ, Corin SM (1991) Combined computed tomography and dacryocystography for complex lacrimal problems. Can J Ophthalmol 26:27–31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gmelin E, Rinast E, Bastian GO et al (1987) Dacryocystography and sialography with digital subtraction. Rofo 146:643–646

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hahnel S, Jansen O, Zake S, Sartor K (1995) Spiral CT in the diagnosis of stenoses of the nasolacrimal duct system. Rofo 163:210–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Robertson JS, Brown ML, Colvard DM (1979) Radiation absorbed dose to the lens in dacryoscintigraphy with 99TcO4. Radiology 133:747–750

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rubin PA, Bilyk JR, Shore JW, Sutula FC, Cheng HM (1994) Magnetic resonance imaging of the lacrimal drainage system. Ophthalmology 101(2):235–243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zinreich SJ, Miller NR, Freeman LE et al (1990) Computed tomographic dacryocystography using topical contrast media for lacrimal system visualization. Orbit 9:19–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Karen S, Caldemeyer L, Stephan M et al (1998) Topical contrast-enhanced CT and MR dacryocystography: imaging the lacrimal drainage apparatus of healthy volunteers. AJR Am J Radiol 171:1501–1504

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goldberg RA, Heinz GW, Chiu L (1993) Gadolinium magnetic resonance imaging dacryocystography. Am J Ophthalmol 115:738–741

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Busse H, Muller KM, Kroll P (1980) Radiological and histological findings of the lacrimal passages of newborns. Arch Ophthalmol 98:528

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lindberg JV (1983) Disorders of the lower excretory system. In: Milder B, Weil B (eds) The lacrimal system. Appleton-Century-Crofts, Norwalk, pp 133–143

    Google Scholar 

  19. Caranci F, Cicala D, Cappabianca S, Briganti F, Brunese L, Fonio P (2012) Orbital fractures: role of imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 33(5):385–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cappabianca S, Colella G, Pezzulo MG et al (2008) Lipomatous lesions of the head and neck region: imaging findings in comparison with histological type. Radiol Med 113(5):758–770

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Agarwal ML (1961) Dacryocystography in chronic dacryocystitis. Am J Ophtalmol 52:245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ewing AE (1909) Roentgen ray demonstration of the lacrimal abscess cavity. Am J Ophthalmol 24:1

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hornblass A, Gabry JB (1980) Diagnosis and treatment of lacrimal sac cysts. Ophthalmology 86:1655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Veirs ER (1957) Stenosis of the canaliculus following irradiation therapy. Am J Ophthalmol 44:249

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Patrinely JR, Gigantelli JW (1988) Dacryocystorhinostomy. In: Linberg JV (ed) Lacrimal surgery. Churchill-Livingstone, New York, pp 151–167

    Google Scholar 

  26. Linberg JV, McCormick SA (1986) Primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a clinicopathologic report and biopsy technique. Ophthalmology 93:1055–1063

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mandeville JT, Woog JJ (2002) Obstruction of the lacrimal drainage system. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 13:303–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Becker BB (2001) Recanalization of the obstructed nasolacrimal duct system. J Vasc Interv Radiol 12:697–699

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Allen K, Berlin AJ (1989) Dacryocystorhinostomy failure: association with nasolacrimal silicone intubation. Ophthalmic Surg 20:486–489

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dryden RM, Wulc AE (1988) Surgery of the lacrimal system. In: Waltman SR, Keates RH, Hoyt CS (eds) Surgery of the eye. Churchill-Livingstone, New York, pp 607–628

    Google Scholar 

  31. Glatt HJ (1991) Dacryocystoplasty: an oculoplastic surgeon’s perspective (letter). Radiology 180:289–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ilgit E, Yuksel D, Unal M et al (1995) Transluminal balloon dilatation of the lacrimal drainage system for the treatment of epiphora. AJR Am J Roentgenol 165:1517–1524

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ilgit E, Önal B, Coskun B (2005) Interventional radiology in the lacrimal drainage system. Eur J Radiol 55:331–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Song HY, Jin YH, Kim JH et al (1995) Nonsurgical placement of a nasolacrimal polyurethane stent. Radiology 194:233–237

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Woog JJ, Kennedy RH, Custer PL et al (2001) Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Am Acad Ophthal 108:2369–2377

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tsirbas A, Davis G, Wormald PJ (2005) Revision dacryocystorhinostomy: a comparison of endoscopic and external techniques. Am J Rhinol 19:322–325

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. El-Guindy A, Dorgham A, Ghoraba M (2000) Endoscopic revision surgery for recurrent epiphora occurring after external dacryocystorhinostomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 109:425–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ari S, Kürşat Cingü A, Sahin A, Gün R, Kiniş V, Caça I (2012) Outcomes of revision external dacryocystorhinostomy and nasal intubation by bicanalicular silicone tubing under endonasal endoscopic guidance. Int J Ophthalmol 5(2):238–241

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Mickelson SA, Kim DK, Stein IM (1997) Endoscopic laser-assisted dacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Otolaryngol 18:107–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Metson R (1991) Endoscopic surgery for lacrimal obstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 104:473–479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Puxeddu R, Nicolai P (2000) Endoscopic revision of failed external dacryocystorhinostomy. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Italy 20:1–4

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Tanenbaum M, Mccord CD (1996) The lacrimal drainage system. In: Tasman W, Jaeger EA (eds) Duane’s clinical ophthalmology, revised edition. Lippincott Raven, Dunfermline, United Kingdom, pp 12–18

  43. Fein W, Daykhovsky L, Papaioannu T et al (1992) Endoscopy of the lacrimal outflow system. Arch Ophthalmol 110:1748–1750

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Singh AD, Singh A, Whitmore I, Taylor E (1992) Endoscopic visualization of the human nasolacrimal system: an experimental study. Br J Ophthalmol 76:663–667

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Galloway JE, Kavic TA, Raflo GT (1984) Digital subtraction macrodacriocystography: a new method for lacrimal system imaging. Ophthalmology 91:956–962

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kassel EE, Schatz CJ (1995) Lacrimal apparatus. In: Som PM, Curtin HD (eds) Head and neck imaging, 3rd edn. Mosby-Year Book, St Louis, pp 1129–1183

    Google Scholar 

  47. Amanat LA, Hildtch TE, Kwok CS (1983) Lacrimal cyintigraphy. II. Its role in diagnosis of epiphora. Br J Ophthalmol 67:720–728

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Takehara Y, Isoda H, Kurihashi K et al (2000) Dynamic MR dacryocystography: a new method for evaluating nasolacrimal duct obstructions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:469–473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Takehara Y, Kurihashi K, Isoda H et al (1998) Dynamic magnetic resonance dacryocystography using half Fourier single shot fast spin echo sequence. Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 58:524–526

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Amrith S, Goh PS, Wang SC (2005) Tear flow dynamics in the human nasolacrimal ducts—a pilot study using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:127–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Amrith S, Goh PS, Wang SC (2007) Lacrimal sac volume measurement during eyelid closure and opening. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 35:135–139

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 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(1):141–147

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Cubuk R, Tasali N, Aydin S, Saydam B, Sengor T (2010) Dynamic MR dacryocystography in patients with epiphora. Eur J Radiol 73(2):230–233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Servizio di Neuroradiologia, PO “S. Maria di Loreto Mare”, ASL NA1 Centro, Via A Vespucci, 80142, Napoli, Italy

    Francesco Somma, Vincenzo d’Agostino & Valeria Piscitelli

  2. Dipartimento “Magrassi e Lanzara”, Servizio di Radiologia, Seconda Università di Napoli, Piazza Miraglia 2, Napoli, Italy

    Fabio Tortora & Nicola Serra

  3. UOC Oculistica, Ospedale San Leonardo, Castellammare di Stabia, Italy

    Gerardo Sorrentino & Mario Gamerra

  4. Dipartimento di Neuroscienze e Scienze Odontostomatologiche, Università di Napoli “Federico II”, Naples, Italy

    Andrea Somma

Authors
  1. Francesco Somma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincenzo d’Agostino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fabio Tortora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicola Serra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gerardo Sorrentino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Valeria Piscitelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrea Somma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mario Gamerra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Somma.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Somma, F., d’Agostino, V., Tortora, F. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the pre-operative evaluation of obstructive epiphora: true-FISP and VIBE vs gadolinium. Radiol med 122, 123–130 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-016-0696-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-016-0696-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation