Advertisement

Quality of Life in Lacrimal Disorders and Patient Satisfaction Following Management

  • Mohammad Javed Ali
Chapter

Abstract

Lacrimal disorders need not necessarily always have only a physical or a functional dimension, there may be emotional, social, and economic or a combination of these aspects to them. Understanding the different facets of patient and the caregiver’s perspectives of the disease before and after medical or surgical interventions contributes significantly to overall patient satisfaction. Rather than objective anatomical outcomes of a surgery alone, patient satisfaction is what all surgeons should ideally aim for. It is in this context that the validated quality of life (QOL) questionnaires help the health-care providers. They are also a very useful tool for clinical research and standardization of outcomes.

References

  1. 1.
    MacEwen CJ, Young JD. Epiphora during the first year of life. Eye. 1991;5:596–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sturrock SM, MacEwen CJ, Young JD. Long term results after probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994;78:892–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee DH, Fudemberg SJ, Davitt BV, et al. Success of simple probing and irrigation in patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction and otitis media. J AAPOS. 2005;9:192–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Holmes JM, Leske DA, Cole SR, et al. A symptom survey and quality of life questionnaire for nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1675–80.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological survey and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1996;105:415–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fahy C, Nikolopoulos TP, O’Donoghue GM. Acoustic neuroma surgery and tinnitus. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2002;259:299–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salhab M, Matai V, Salam MA. The impact of functional endoscopic sinus surgery on health status. Rhinology. 2004;42:98–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bakri SJ, Carney AS, Robinson K, et al. Quality of life outcomes following dacryocystorhinostomy: external and endonasal laser techniques compared. Orbit. 1999;18:83–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mansour K, Sere M, Oey AG, et al. Long term patient satisfaction of external dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmologica. 2005;219:97–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yeniad B, Uludag G, Kozer-Bilgin L. Assessment of patient satisfaction following external versus transcanalicular dacryocystorhinostomy with a diode laser and evaluation if change in quality of life after simultaneous bilateral surgery in patients with bilateral nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Curr Eye Res. 2012;37:286–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ali MJ, Honavar SG. Assessment of patient satisfaction following external versus transcanalicular dacryocystorhinostomy. Curr Eye Res. 2012;37:853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho A, Sachidananda R, Carrie S, et al. Quality of life assessment after non-laser endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Clin Otolaryngol. 2006;31:399–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hii BW, McNab AA, Friebel JD. A comparison of external and endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in regard to patient satisfaction and cost. Orbit. 2012;31:67–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ibrahim HA, Batterbury M, Banhegyi G, et al. Endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy outcome profile in a general ophthalmic service unit: a comparative, retrospective study. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2001;32:220–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dolman PJ. Comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy with non-laser endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:78–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chan W, Malhotra R, Kakizaki H, et al. Perspective: what does the term functional mean in the context of epiphora? Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2012;40:749–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cheung LM, Francis IC, Stapleton F, et al. Symptoms assessment in patients with functional and primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction before and after a successful dacryocystorhinostomy surgery: a prospective study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:1671–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kabata Y, Goto S, Takahashi G, et al. Vision-related quality of life in patients undergoing silicone tube intubation for lacrimal passage obstruction. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152:147–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smirnov G, Tuomilehto H, Kokki H, et al. Symptom score questionnaire for nasolacrimal duct obstruction in adults – a novel tool to assess the outcomes after endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Rhinology. 2010;48:446–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mistry N, Rockley TJ, Reynolds T, et al. Development and validation of a symptom questionnaire for recording outcomes in adult lacrimal surgery. Rhinology. 2011;49:538–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dacryology ServiceL.V. Prasad Eye InstituteBanjara Hills, HyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations