Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2016
Success rates of dacryoendoscopy-guided probing for recalcitrant congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fujimoto Masahiro, Ogino Ken, Matsuyama Hiroko, Miyazaki Chika
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Our aim was to review the success rates of dacryoendoscopy-guided probing for recalcitrant congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO).
METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 498 patients (521 eyes) diagnosed with CNLDO between January 2011 and November 2013. Of these, 54 eyes met the eligibility criteria and underwent probing with a dacryoendoscope.
RESULTS: Of the 54 eyes, 21 were classified as failed cases at other hospitals, 13 as cases requiring conversion from blind to dacryoendoscopy-guided probing during surgery at our hospital, and 20 as cases requiring intervention under general anesthesia because of difficulty with topical anesthesia. The overall success rate with dacryoendoscopy was 98.1 % (53/54 eyes) at postoperative week 2 and 97.1 % (33/34 eyes) a year after surgery. Among the cases that failed at other hospitals, one showed the formation of five false passages in the middle area of the nasolacrimal duct. In 11 eyes, slit-like adhesion was confirmed as a blurred linear line at the distal end of the nasolacrimal duct. Patency could be smoothly achieved by releasing the adhesion.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a high success rate for dacryoendoscopy-guided probing in CNLDO patients. The use of a dacryoendoscope allows direct visualization of the lacrimal passage and is likely to become necessary for managing CNLDO.
METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 498 patients (521 eyes) diagnosed with CNLDO between January 2011 and November 2013. Of these, 54 eyes met the eligibility criteria and underwent probing with a dacryoendoscope.
RESULTS: Of the 54 eyes, 21 were classified as failed cases at other hospitals, 13 as cases requiring conversion from blind to dacryoendoscopy-guided probing during surgery at our hospital, and 20 as cases requiring intervention under general anesthesia because of difficulty with topical anesthesia. The overall success rate with dacryoendoscopy was 98.1 % (53/54 eyes) at postoperative week 2 and 97.1 % (33/34 eyes) a year after surgery. Among the cases that failed at other hospitals, one showed the formation of five false passages in the middle area of the nasolacrimal duct. In 11 eyes, slit-like adhesion was confirmed as a blurred linear line at the distal end of the nasolacrimal duct. Patency could be smoothly achieved by releasing the adhesion.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed a high success rate for dacryoendoscopy-guided probing in CNLDO patients. The use of a dacryoendoscope allows direct visualization of the lacrimal passage and is likely to become necessary for managing CNLDO.