MedElevator
Войти в исследования Eye (London, England) · 2022
DCR for nasolacrimal duct stenosis may be less effective than for complete obstruction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Shapira Yinon, Macri Carmelo, Usmani Eiman, Davis Garry, Selva Dinesh
Аннотация
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.
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.