Cargando…

DCR for nasolacrimal duct stenosis may be less effective than for complete obstruction

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the success of endo-DCR in nasolacrimal duct stenosis (NLDS) versus nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO). METHODS: Consecutive adult patients with epiphora attending a tertiary lacrimal clinic from February 2012 to February 2021 were reviewed. NLDS was diagnosed by patent la...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shapira, Yinon, Macri, Carmelo, Usmani, Eiman, Davis, Garry, Selva, Dinesh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9998381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35397663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02048-9
_version_ 1784903453975248896
author Shapira, Yinon
Macri, Carmelo
Usmani, Eiman
Davis, Garry
Selva, Dinesh
author_facet Shapira, Yinon
Macri, Carmelo
Usmani, Eiman
Davis, Garry
Selva, Dinesh
author_sort Shapira, Yinon
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the success of endo-DCR in nasolacrimal duct stenosis (NLDS) versus nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO). METHODS: Consecutive adult patients with epiphora attending a tertiary lacrimal clinic from February 2012 to February 2021 were reviewed. NLDS was diagnosed by patent lacrimal syringing and combined dacryocystography (NLD stenosis) and dacryoscintigraphy (post-sac delay) findings in all eyes. Cases with evidence of canalicular stenosis or other identifiable causes of epiphora were excluded. The epiphora resolution and improvement rates following endo-DCR were compared between NLDS and complete NLDO cases. RESULTS: DCRs in 24 NLDS (23 patients, 69.6% females, mean age 61.0 ± 17.07) and 58 NLDO (56 patients, 69.6% females, mean age 61.9 ± 17.4) were included. Resolution of epiphora was achieved in 10 (41.7% [95% CI 0.24–0.61]) of the NLDS cases compared to 40 (69.0% [95% CI 0.56–0.79]) in NLDO (p = 0.021). Improvement of epiphora (i.e., either improvement or resolution) was noted in 17 (70.8% [95% CI 0.51–0.85]) of NLDS and 53 (91.4% [95% CI 0.81–0.96]) of NLDO cases (p = 0.034). Three patients (12.5%) with NLDS had subsequent lacrimal procedures (one DCR revision, two Jones tube) at a median of 14 (range 11–21) months. 71.4% of the NLDS patients responded to a phone questionnaire at a median of 93 months postoperatively. Of these, 46.7% reported resolution or significant improvement, and 33.3% reported slight improvement. 64.3% said they would recommend DCR to others suffering from epiphora. CONCLUSION: Endo-DCR may benefit approximately 70% of patients with NLDS. The success of endo-DCR in complete NLDO may be higher.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9998381
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99983812023-03-11 DCR for nasolacrimal duct stenosis may be less effective than for complete obstruction Shapira, Yinon Macri, Carmelo Usmani, Eiman Davis, Garry Selva, Dinesh Eye (Lond) Article OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the success of endo-DCR in nasolacrimal duct stenosis (NLDS) versus nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO). METHODS: Consecutive adult patients with epiphora attending a tertiary lacrimal clinic from February 2012 to February 2021 were reviewed. NLDS was diagnosed by patent lacrimal syringing and combined dacryocystography (NLD stenosis) and dacryoscintigraphy (post-sac delay) findings in all eyes. Cases with evidence of canalicular stenosis or other identifiable causes of epiphora were excluded. The epiphora resolution and improvement rates following endo-DCR were compared between NLDS and complete NLDO cases. RESULTS: DCRs in 24 NLDS (23 patients, 69.6% females, mean age 61.0 ± 17.07) and 58 NLDO (56 patients, 69.6% females, mean age 61.9 ± 17.4) were included. Resolution of epiphora was achieved in 10 (41.7% [95% CI 0.24–0.61]) of the NLDS cases compared to 40 (69.0% [95% CI 0.56–0.79]) in NLDO (p = 0.021). Improvement of epiphora (i.e., either improvement or resolution) was noted in 17 (70.8% [95% CI 0.51–0.85]) of NLDS and 53 (91.4% [95% CI 0.81–0.96]) of NLDO cases (p = 0.034). Three patients (12.5%) with NLDS had subsequent lacrimal procedures (one DCR revision, two Jones tube) at a median of 14 (range 11–21) months. 71.4% of the NLDS patients responded to a phone questionnaire at a median of 93 months postoperatively. Of these, 46.7% reported resolution or significant improvement, and 33.3% reported slight improvement. 64.3% said they would recommend DCR to others suffering from epiphora. CONCLUSION: Endo-DCR may benefit approximately 70% of patients with NLDS. The success of endo-DCR in complete NLDO may be higher. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-04-09 2023-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9998381/ /pubmed/35397663 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02048-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Shapira, Yinon
Macri, Carmelo
Usmani, Eiman
Davis, Garry
Selva, Dinesh
DCR for nasolacrimal duct stenosis may be less effective than for complete obstruction
title DCR for nasolacrimal duct stenosis may be less effective than for complete obstruction
title_full DCR for nasolacrimal duct stenosis may be less effective than for complete obstruction
title_fullStr DCR for nasolacrimal duct stenosis may be less effective than for complete obstruction
title_full_unstemmed DCR for nasolacrimal duct stenosis may be less effective than for complete obstruction
title_short DCR for nasolacrimal duct stenosis may be less effective than for complete obstruction
title_sort dcr for nasolacrimal duct stenosis may be less effective than for complete obstruction
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9998381/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35397663
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02048-9
work_keys_str_mv AT shapirayinon dcrfornasolacrimalductstenosismaybelesseffectivethanforcompleteobstruction
AT macricarmelo dcrfornasolacrimalductstenosismaybelesseffectivethanforcompleteobstruction
AT usmanieiman dcrfornasolacrimalductstenosismaybelesseffectivethanforcompleteobstruction
AT davisgarry dcrfornasolacrimalductstenosismaybelesseffectivethanforcompleteobstruction
AT selvadinesh dcrfornasolacrimalductstenosismaybelesseffectivethanforcompleteobstruction