Clinical Outcomes of Initial and Repeated Nasolacrimal Duct Office-Based Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction
2
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: To characterize the outcomes of initial and repeated office-based probing as a primary treatment for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) in children. Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent nasolacrimal duct office-based probing for CNLDO between March 2004 and January 2008 were reviewed retrospectively. Nasolacrimal duct probing was performed on 244 eyes from 229 consecutive patients with CNLDO. Patients who were refractory to the first probing underwent a second probing 4 to 8 weeks later. Results: Based on exclusion criteria, 244 eyes from 229 patients (117 males and 112 females), aged 6 to 71 months (mean, 12.4 ± 8.36) were included. The success rate of the initial probing was 80% (196 of 244) for all patients,82% (111 of 136) in the 6 to 12 month age group, 79% (64 of 81) in the 13 to 18 months age group, and 78% (21of 27) among individuals older than 19 months (p = 0.868, Pearson chi-square test). The success rate of the second probing was 61% (25 of 41) for all patients, 74% (17 of 23) in the 6 to 12 months age group, 58% (7 of 12) in the 13 to 18 months age group, and 17% (1 of 6) among individuals older than 19 months (p = 0.043, Fisher’s exact test). Conclusions: While the success rate of initial nasolacrimal duct probing is not affected by age, the rate of success rate with a second probing was significantly lower in patients older than 19 months. Based on the results, authors recommend further surgical interventions, such as silicone tube intubation or balloon dacryocystoplasty, instead of repeated office probing for patients older than 19 months, if an initial office probing has failed.
Abstract
Purpose: To characterize the outcomes of initial and repeated office-based probing as a primary treatment for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) in children. Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent nasolacrimal duct office-based probing for CNLDO between March 2004 and January 2008 were reviewed retrospectively. Nasolacrimal duct probing was performed on 244 eyes from 229 consecutive patients with CNLDO. Patients who were refractory to the first probing underwent a second probing 4 to 8 weeks later. Results: Based on exclusion criteria, 244 eyes from 229 patients (117 males and 112 females), aged 6 to 71 months (mean, 12.4 ± 8.36) were included. The success rate of the initial probing was 80% (196 of 244) for all patients,82% (111 of 136) in the 6 to 12 month age group, 79% (64 of 81) in the 13 to 18 months age group, and 78% (21of 27) among individuals older than 19 months (p = 0.868, Pearson chi-square test). The success rate of the second probing was 61% (25 of 41) for all patients, 74% (17 of 23) in the 6 to 12 months age group, 58% (7 of 12) in the 13 to 18 months age group, and 17% (1 of 6) among individuals older than 19 months (p = 0.043, Fisher’s exact test). Conclusions: While the success rate of initial nasolacrimal duct probing is not affected by age, the rate of success rate with a second probing was significantly lower in patients older than 19 months. Based on the results, authors recommend further surgical interventions, such as silicone tube intubation or balloon dacryocystoplasty, instead of repeated office probing for patients older than 19 months, if an initial office probing has failed.
참고문헌 (30)
- Guerry D 3rd, "Congenital impatency of the nasolacrimal duct", Arch Ophthal, 39, pp.193~204 (1948)
- Noda S, "Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in Japanese infants: its incidence and treatment with massage", J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus, 28, pp.20~22 (1991)
- Paul TO, "Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: natural history and the timing of optimal intervention", J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus, 31, pp.362~367 (1994)
- Petersen RA, "The natural course of congenital obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct", J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus, 15, pp.246~250 (1978)
- Nelson LB, "Medical management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction", Pediatrics, 76, pp.172~175 (1985)
- Katowitz JA, "Timing of initial probing and irrigation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction", Ophthalmology, 94, pp.698~705 (1987)
- Mannor GE, "Factors affecting the success of nasolacrimal duct probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction", Am J Ophthalmol, 127, pp.616~617 (1999)
- Havins WE, "A useful alternative to silicone intubation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstructions", Ophthalmic Surg, 14, pp.666~670 (1983)
- Ogawa GS, "Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction", J Pediatr, 119(1 Pt 1), pp.12~17 (1991)
- Kim YS, "Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: irrigation or probing?", Korean J Ophthalmol, 14, pp.90~96 (2000)
- Becker BB, "Balloon catheter dilatation for treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction", Am J Ophthalmol, 121, pp.304~309 (1996)
- Repka MX, "Balloon catheter dilation and nasolacrimal duct intubation for treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction after failed probing", Arch Ophthalmol, 127, pp.633~639 (2009)
- Honavar SG, "Outcome of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in older children", Am J Ophthalmol, 130, pp.42~48 (2000)
- Gunton KB, "Comparison of balloon dacryocystoplasty to probing as the primary treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction", J AAPOS, 5, pp.139~142 (2001)
- Robb RM, "Success rates of nasolacrimal duct probing at time intervals after 1 year of age", Ophthalmology, 105, pp.1307~1309 (1998)
- Kushner BJ, "The management of nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children between 18 months and 4 years old", J AAPOS, 2, pp.57~60 (1998)
- el-Mansoury J, "Results of late probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction", Ophthalmology, 93, pp.1052~1054 (1986)
- Stager D, "Office probing of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction", Ophthalmic Surg, 23, pp.482~484 (1992)
- Ffooks OO, "Dacryocystitis in infancy", Br J Ophthalmol, 46, pp.422~434 (1962)
- Moon JS, "Office probing of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction", J Korean Ophthalmol Soc, 40, pp.2357~2361 (1999)
- Older J, "Congenital lacrimal disorders and management" (1988), Churchill Livingstone
- Kashkouli MB, "Initial nasolacrimal duct probing in children under age 5: cure rate and factors affecting success", J AAPOS, 6, pp.360~363 (2002)
- Ahn DH, "The effect of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction", J Korean Ophthalmol Soc, 39, pp.836~840 (1998)
- Ghuman T, "Treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction", Am Orthopt J, 49, pp.163~168 (1999)
- Welham RA, "Congenital lacrimal fistulas", Arch Ophthalmol, 103, pp.545~548 (1985)
- Repka MX, "Primary treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction with probing in children younger than 4 years", Ophthalmology, 115, pp.577~584 (2008)
- Baker JD, "Treatment of congenital nasolacrimal system obstruction", J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus, 22, pp.34~36 (1985)
- Steindler P, "Efficacy of probing for children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a retrospective study using fluorescein dye disappearance test and lacrimal sac echography", Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 247, pp.837~846 (2009)
- Limbu B, "Age-based comparison of successful probing in Nepalese children with nasolacrimal duct obstruction", Orbit, 29, pp.16~20 (2010)
- Choi WC, "Intranasal endoscopic diagnosis and treatment in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction", Ophthalmic Surg Lasers, 33, pp.288~292 (2002)