Clinical Evaluation and Imaging of Lacrimal System Obstruction

Chapter

Abstract

The lacrimal drainage apparatus is an intricate mucous membrane-lined conduit the function of which depends on a complex interplay of anatomy and physiology. Appropriate drainage of tears depends on several factors, including the volume of tear production, eyelid position, normal pump mechanisms, anatomic status of the drainage passages, gravity, and nasal air convection currents. The patient with symptomatic epiphora may have a normal anatomic system overwhelmed by an oversecretion syndrome, or a drainage system that is anatomically compromised and is therefore unable to handle normal tear production. Conversely, patients may have partial or complete blockage of the nasolacrimal system but experience no symptoms or have symptoms of dry eye if tear production is significantly reduced. The clinical picture of bothersome epiphora thus depends on the balance of tear production and tear drainage, not on the absolute function of either one.

Keywords

Radionuclide Docetaxel Fluorescein Gadolinium Rhinitis 

References

  1. 1.
    Mimura T, Usul T, Yamamoto H, et al. Conjunctivochalasis and contact lenses. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148:20–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mimura T, Yamagami S, Usul T, et al. Changes of conjunctivochalasis with age in a hospital-based study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147:171–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li QS, Zhang XR, Zou HD, et al. Epidemiologic study of conjunctivochalasis in populations equal or over 60 years old in Caoyangxincun community of Shanhai. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2009;45:793–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knijnik D. Tearing and eyelid laxity with no ectropion: is tarsal strip always effective? Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2006;69:37–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Narayanan K, Barnes EA. Epiphora with eyelid laxity. Orbit. 2005;24:201–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vick VL, Holds JB, Hartstein ME, Massry GG. Tarsal strip procedure for the correction of tearing. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;20:37–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Detorakis ET, Zissimopoulos A, Katernellis G, et al. Lower eyelid laxity in functional acquired epiphora: evaluation with quantitative scintigraphy. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;22:25–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bukhari A. Prevalence of punctal stenosis among ophthalmology patients. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2009;16:85–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Billing K, Karagiannis A, Selva D. Punctal-canalicular stenosis associated with mitomycin-C for corneal epithelial dysplasia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:746–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eiseman AS, Flanagan JC, Brooks AB, et al. Ocular surface, ocular adnexal, and lacrimal complications associated with the use of systemic 5-fluorouracil. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;19:216–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Esmaeli B, Valero V, Ahmani MA, Booser D. Canalicular stenosis secondary to doxetaxel (taxotere): a newly recognized side effect. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:994–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schirmer O. Studien zur physiology und pathology der tranenabsonderung und tranenabfuhr. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1903;56:197–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karampatakis V, Karamitsos A, Skriapa A, Pastiadis G. Comparison between normal values of 2- and 5-minutes Schirmer test without anesthesia. Cornea. 2010;29:497–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zappia RJ, Milder B. Lacrimal drainage function. 2. The fluorescein dye disappearance test. Am J Ophthalmol. 1972;74:160–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wright MM, Bersani TA, Frueh BR, Musch DC. Efficacy of the primary dye test. Ophthalmology. 1989;96:481–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Flach A. The fluorescein appearance test for lacrimal obstruction. Ann Ophthalmol. 1979;11:237–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lipsius EI. Sodium saccharin for testing the patency of the lacrimal passages. Am J Ophthalmol. 1957;43:114–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hornblass A. A simple taste test for lacrimal obstruction. Arch Ophthalmol. 1973;90:435–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beigi B, Uddin JM, McMillan TF, Linardos E. Inaccuracy of diagnosis in a cohort of patients on the waiting list for dacryocystorhinostomy when the diagnosis was made by only syringing the lacrimal system. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007;17:485–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dutton JJ. Standardized echography in the diagnosis of lacrimal drainage dysfunction. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107:1010–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rochels R, Lieb W, Nover A. Echographic diagnosis in diseases of the efferent tear ducts. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1984;185:243–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Montanara A, Mannino G, Contestabile M. Macrodacryocystography and echography in diagnosis of disorders of the lacrimal pathways. Surv Ophthalmol. 1983;28:33–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tost F, Bruder R, Clemens S. 20-MHz ultrasound of presaccular lacrimal ducts. Ophthalmologe. 2002;99:25–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tobias S, Pavlidis M, Busse H, Thanos S. Presurgical and postsurgical assessment of lacrimal drainage dysfunction. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:764–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Iba GB, Hanafee WN. Distention dacryocystography. Radiology. 1968;90:1020–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Galloway JE, Kavic TA, Raflo GT. Digital subtraction macrodacryocystography. Ophthalmology. 1984;91:956–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malik SRK, Gupta AK, Chaterjee S, et al. Dacryocystography of normal and pathological lacrimal passages. Br J Ophthalmol. 1969;53:174–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Freitag S, Woog JJ, Kousoubris PD, Curtin HD. Helical computed tomography dacryocystography with three-dimensional reconstruction. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;18:121–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frances IC, Kappagoda MB, Cole IE, Bank L, Dunn GD. Computed tomography of the lacrimal drainage system: retrospective study of 107 cases of dacryostenosis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;15:217–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Glatt HJ. Evaluation of lacrimal obstruction secondary to facial fractures using computed tomography or computed tomographic dacryocystography. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;12:284–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Debnam JM, Esmaeli B, Ginsberg LE. Imaging characteristics of dacryocystocele diagnosed after surgery for sinonasal cancer. Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28:1872–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bonnet F, Ducasse A, Marcus C, Hoeffel C. CT dacryocystography: normal findings and pathology. J Radiol. 2009;90:1685–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Udhay P, Noronha OV, Mohan RE. Helical computed tomographic dacryocystography and its role in the diagnosis and management of lacrimal drainage system blocks and medial canthal masses. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008;56:31–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ashenhurst M, Jaffer N, Hurwitz JJ, et al. Combined computed tomography and dacryocystography for complex lacrimal problems. Can J Ophthalmol. 1991;26:27–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rossomondo RM, Carlton WH, Trueblood JH, et al. A new method of evaluating lacrimal drainage. Arch Ophthalmol. 1972;88:523–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wilhelm KE, Rudorf H, Greschus S, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) dacryocystography for imaging of the nasolacrimal duct system. Clin Neuroradiol. 2009;19:283–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Goldberg RA, Heinz GW, Chiu L. Gadolinium magnetic resonance imaging dacryocystography. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;115:738–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Karagulle T, Erden A, Erden I, et al. Nasolacrimal system: evaluation with gadolinium-enhanced MR dacryocystography with a three-dimensional fast spoiled gradient recalled technique. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2343–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rubin PA, Bilyk JR, Shore JW, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lacrimal drainage system. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:235–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cubuk R, Tasali N, Aydin S, Saydam B, Sengor T. Dynamic MR dacryocystography in patients with epiphora. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73:230–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hoffmann KT, Anders N, Hosten N, et al. High resolution functional magnetic resonance tomography with Gd-DTPA eye drops in diagnosis of lacrimal apparatus diseases. Ophthalmologe. 1998;95:542–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kirchhof K, Hähnel S, Jansen O, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance dacryocystography in patients with epiphora. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24:327–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Manfrè L, de Maria M, Todaro E, et al. MR dacryocystography: comparison with dacryocystography and CT dacryocystography. Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21:1145–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Weber AL, Rodrigues-De Velasquez A, Lucarelli MJ, Cheng HM. Normal anatomy of the lacrimal sac and duct: evaluated by dacryocystography, computed tomography and MR imaging. Neuroimaging Clin North Am. 1996;6:199–217.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Carlton WH, Trueblood JH, Rossomondo RM. Clinical evaluation of microscintigraphy of the lacrimal drainage apparatus. J Nucl Med. 1973;14:89–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jager PL, Mansour K, Vrakkink-de Zoete H, et al. Clinical value of dacryoscintigraphy using a simplified analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243:1134–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wearne MJ, Pitts J, Frank J, et al. Comparison of dacryocystography and lacrimal scintigraphy in the diagnosis of functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:1032–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Amanat LA, Hilditch TE, Kwok CS, et al. Lacrimal scintigraphy II. Its role in the diagnosis of epiphora. Br J Ophthalmol. 1983;67:720–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fard-Esfahani A, Tari AS, Saghari M, et al. Assessment of the accuracy of lacrimal scintigraphy based on a prospective analysis of patients’symptomatology. Orbit. 2008;27:237–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jabbour J, Van der Wall H, Katelaris L, et al. Quantitative lacrimal scintigraphy in the assessment of epiphora. Clin Nucl Med. 2008;33:535–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hilditch TE, Kwok CS, Amanat LA. Lacrimal scintigraphy I. Compartmental analysis of data. Br J Ophthalmol. 1983;67:713–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Putterman AM. Dacryocystography with occluded common canaliculus. Am J Ophthalmol. 1973;76:1010–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vettese T, Hurwitz JJ. Toxicity of the chemiluminescent material Cyalume in anatomic assessment of the nasolacrimal system. Can J Ophthalmol. 1983;18:131–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Raflo GT, Chart P, Hurwitz JJ. Thermographic evaluation of the human lacrimal drainage system. Ophthalmic Surg. 1982;13:119–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyMoore Regional Hospital, Carolina Eye AssociatesSouthern PinesUSA

Personalised recommendations