Clinical Outcomes of Nasolacrimal Probing and Silicone Intubation in Patients with Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

Sung Hyun Ahn; Tae Eun Lee; In Cheon You; Nam Chun Cho; Min Ahn

doi:10.3341/jkos.2019.60.7.613

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.60(7) > 1129784

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Ahn, Lee, You, Cho, and Ahn: Clinical Outcomes of Nasolacrimal Probing and Silicone Intubation in Patients with Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

Original Article

Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2019; 60(7): 613-619.

Published online: 15 July 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2019.60.7.613

Clinical Outcomes of Nasolacrimal Probing and Silicone Intubation in Patients with Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

Sung Hyun Ahn, MD¹, Tae Eun Lee, MD, PhD^1,^2,³, In Cheon You, MD, PhD^1,^2,³, Nam Chun Cho, MD, PhD^1,^2,³, Min Ahn, MD, PhD^1,^2,³

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Korea.

²Research Institute of Clinical Medicine, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Korea.

³Biomedical Research Institute, Chonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonju, Korea.

Address reprint requests to Min Ahn, MD, PhD. Department of Ophthalmology, Chonbuk National University Hospital, #20 Geonji-ro, Deokjin-gu, Jeonju 54907, Korea. Tel: 82-63-250-1960, Fax: 82-63-250-1960, ahnmin@jbnu.ac.kr

Received 13 September 2018 Revised 20 November 2018 Accepted 20 June 2019

The Korean Ophthalmological Society

(open-access):

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the efficacy and factors affecting the success rates of nasolacrimal probing and silicone intubation (SI) in patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients including 69 eyes of 59 patients who received probing and 61 eyes of 49 patients who received SI. In patients with probing, the age, sex, and history of conservative treatment were analyzed in the success and failure groups, and a success rate comparison was conducted by dividing these values into postnatal group 1 (< 6 months), group 2 (6–12 months), and group 3 (≥ 12 months) following their age. In patients with SI, the age, sex, retention period of the tube, and history of probing and conservative treatment were analyzed in the success and failure groups.

Results

In the failure group involving probing, the average age was significantly higher compared with the success group (p = 0.005), and the success rate of group 3 was significantly lower compared with group 2 (p = 0.005). In the failure group involving SI, the age was significantly higher (p = 0.015); however, the retention period was shorter (p = 0.006), and the history of probing also showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.009). Logistic regression analysis showed that the age and history of probing had an effect on the success rate (p = 0.049 and p = 0.047, respectively); however, the retention period was not statistically significant (p = 0.411).

Conclusions

In patients with CNLDO > 12 months, the success rate of probing was lower than in patients < 12 months, and probing might have an effect on the success rate of future SIs. It is therefore recommended that SI be preferentially performed on patients > 12 months.

Keywords: Congenital, Intubation, Lacrimal duct obstruction

Figures and Tables

Table 1

The Comparison of the success rates of nasolacrimal probing between different age group

Values are presented as number (%).

^*Linear-by-linear association; ^†p = 1.000; ^‡p = 0.053; ^§p = 0.017; ^†,‡,§Fishers's exact test.

Table 2

The interval likelihood ratios and confidence intervals for success of nasolacrimal probing based on different age groups

Table 3

The comparison of characteristics in success and failure group with silicone tube intubation

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation unless otherwise indicated.

^*Mann Whitney U-test; ^†Fisher's exact test.

Table 4

Logistic regression analysis of possible factors affecting success rate in silicone tube intubation

^*Logistic regression analysis.

Notes

^{Conflicts of Interest} The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

References

1. Lee SY, Chung HS, Kim HB, et al. The incidence of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in Korean neonates. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1989; 30:5–8.

2. Oh HS, Ahn Y. The incidence and medical treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in Korean infants. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1995; 36:1007–1013.

3. Paul TO. Medical management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1985; 22:68–70.

4. Petersen RA, Robb RM. The natural course of congenital obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1978; 15:246–250.

5. el-Mansoury J, Calhoun JH, Nelson LB, Harley RD. Results of late probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology. 1986; 93:1052–1054.

6. Moon JS, Choi WC. Office probing of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1999; 40:2357–2361.

7. Katowitz JA, Welsh MG. Timing of initial probing and irrigation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology. 1987; 94:698–705.

8. Cho SJ, Byon DS, Moon YS. The clinical outcome of probing and silicone tube intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2001; 42:1661–1665.

9. Sturrock SM, MacEwen CJ, Young JD. Long-term results after probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994; 78:892–894.

10. Shin SG, Eum YH, Chung EH. Usefulness of early probing in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1994; 35:972–976.

11. Mannor GE, Rose GE, Frimpong-Ansah K, Ezra E. Factors affecting the success of nasolacrimal duct probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999; 127:616–617.

12. Havins WE, Wilkins RB. A useful alternative to silicone intubation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstructions. Ophthalmic Surg. 1983; 14:666–670.

13. Ahn DH, Lew H, Kim HY, Lee SY. The effect of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1998; 39:836–840.

14. Paul TO, Shepherd R. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: natural history and the timing of optimal intervention. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1994; 31:362–367.

15. Young JD, MacEwen CJ. Managing congenital lacrimal obstruction in general practice. BMJ. 1997; 315:293–296.

16. Welsh MG, Katowitz JA. Timing of silastic tubing removal after intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989; 5:43–48.

17. Migliori ME, Putterman AM. Silicone intubation for the treatment of congenital lacrimal duct obstruction: successful result removing the tubes after six weeks. Ophthalmology. 1988; 95:792–795.

18. Kraft ST, Crawford JS. Silicone tube intubation in disorders of the lacrimal system in children. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982; 94:290–299.

19. Lee JJ, Ahn JH, Kim JL, Yang JW. The clinical outcome of endoscopic silicone tube intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2012; 53:929–933.

20. Park J, Lee YJ, Kim SJ, Jang JW. Factors affecting the outcome of silicone intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2011; 52:266–271.

21. Engel JM, Hichie-Schmidt C, Khammar A, et al. Monocanalicular silastic intubation for the initial correction of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS. 2007; 11:183–186.

22. Ghuman T, Gonzales C, Mazow ML. Treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Am Orthopt J. 1999; 49:163–168.

23. Lim CS, Martin F, Beckenham T, Cumming RG. Nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children: outcome of intubation. J AAPOS. 2004; 8:466–472.

24. Yoon TJ, Na KS, Yoon WJ. The effect of silicone tube intubation in pediatric nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2002; 43:155–159.

25. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Repka MX, Melia BM, et al. Primary treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction with nasolacrimal duct intubation in children younger than 4 years of age. J AAPOS. 2008; 12:445–450.

26. Peterson NJ, Weaver RG, Yeatts RP. Effect of short-duration silicone intubation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008; 24:167–171.

27. Sener EC, Onerci M. Reappraisal of probing of the congenital obstruction of the nasolacrimal system: is nasal endoscopy essential? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2001; 58:65–68.

28. Al-Faky YH, Al-Sobaie N, Mousa A, et al. Evaluation of treatment modalities and prognostic factors in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS. 2012; 16:53–57.

TOOLS

Similar articles