Volume 8, Issue 2, March 2019, Page: 13-16
Treatment of Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Infants by Probing Without Irrigation
Esmat Karbasi, Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
Narges Khanjani, Neurology Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
Received: Apr. 15, 2019;       Accepted: May 29, 2019;       Published: Jun. 19, 2019
DOI: 10.11648/j.sjcm.20190802.12      View  191      Downloads  15
Abstract
Nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) is a common congenital abnormality. Some obstructions resolve spontaneously and some require probing surgery with irrigation. However, the necessity of irrigation after probing is still under doubt. The study included 131 eyes (114 children) with persistent NLDO, between 9 to 48 months of age with no previous nasolacrimal surgical procedures, who had attended the ophthalmology clinic at Shafa Hospital, Kerman, Iran for NLDO treatment. Probing was done through the superior or inferior canalicular system into the nasolacrimal canal, not succeeded by irrigation. The duration of anesthesia was shorter than usual. Subjects were visited at 1 and 6 months after surgery. Before the surgery, all of the eyes had epiphora, 56% had mucopurolent discharge and 18% had a history of dacrocystitis, in which after the surgery the prevalence dropped to 6%, 5% and 4%. The average procedure time under general anesthesia was 5.9 minutes and the average recovery time wan 7.2 minutes, which was shorter than surgery with irrigation. In this study, we experienced similar results of probing without irrigation in comparison to probing with irrigation, also the surgery and anesthesia duration was shorter and the risk of aspiration was little. More studies from other centers and larger populations especially RCTs should be performed to confirm our results.
Keywords
Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction, Treatment, Probing, Irrigation
To cite this article
Esmat Karbasi, Narges Khanjani, Treatment of Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Infants by Probing Without Irrigation, Science Journal of Clinical Medicine. Vol. 8, No. 2, 2019, pp. 13-16. doi: 10.11648/j.sjcm.20190802.12
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Lala-Gitteau E, Majzoub S, Pisella PJ. Utilisation du melange protoxyde d'azote-oxygene lors du sondage des voies lacrymales chez l'enfant. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2007; 30(9): 924-7.
[2]
Karabas LV, Elibol O, Yuksel N, Gurkan Y, Altintas O, Caglar Y. Probing for nasolacrimal duct obstruction using intranasal midazolam sedation as an alternative to general anesthesia. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2006; 43: 79-84.
[3]
Shrestha JB, Bajimaya S, Hennig A, Shankar K. Outcome of probing under topical anesthesia in children below 18 months of age with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. The internet journal of Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2009; 7(1).
[4]
Movaghar M, Kodsi S, Merola C, Doyle J. Probing for nasolacrimal duct obstruction with intravenous propofol sedation. Journal of AAPOS. 2000; 4: 179-82.
[5]
Suresh S, Park J. Nasolacrimal duct probing in infants and children: an easy technique for administering general anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2003; 97: 1852-8.
[6]
Paul TO, Shephard R. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: natural history and the timing of optimal intervention. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1994; 31: 362-7.
[7]
Arora S, Koushan K, Harvey JT. Success rates of primary probing for congenital nasolacrimal obstruction in children. J AAPOS 2012; 16: 173-6.
[8]
Hung CH, Chen YC, Lin SL, Chen WL. Nasolacrimal Duct Probing under Topical Anesthesia for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Taiwan. Pediatr Neonatol. 2015; 56(6): 402-7
[9]
Young JDH, MacEwen CJ, Oqston SA. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in the second year of life: a multicenter trial of management. Eye. 1996; 10: 485-91.
[10]
Honavar S, Vasudha EP, Rao GN. Outcome of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in older children. Amer J Ophtalmol. 2000; 130: 42-8.
[11]
Lee KA, Chandler DL, Repka MX, Melia M, Beck RW, Summers CG, et al. A Comparison of Treatment Approaches for Bilateral Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013; 156: 1045-50.
[12]
Medghalchi A, Mohammadi MJ, Soltani Moghadam R, Dalili H. Results of Nasolacrimal Duct Probing in Children between 9-48 Months. Acta Medica Iranica. 2014; 52(7): 545-51.
[13]
Isaza G, Arora S. Probing without Irrigation in Children with Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. Clin Invest Med. 2013; 36(3): E158-E62.
[14]
Cakmak S, Yildirim M, Sakalar Y, Keklikci U, Alakus F. Is it necessary to accompany probing with endoscopy in cases of congenital nasolacrimal canal obstruction?. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010; 74(9): 1013-5.
[15]
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, Repka MX, Melia BM, Beck RW, Atkinson CS, Chandler DL, et al. Primary treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction with nasolacrimal duct intubation in children younger than 4 years of age. Journal of AAPOS. 2008; 12(5): 445-50.
Browse journals by subject