Eye (London, England) · 1998
Comparison between nasolacrimal syringing/probing, macrodacryocystography and surgical findings in the management of epiphora.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Irfan S, Cassels-Brown A, Nelson M
Аннотация
AIMS: Macrodacryocystography (MDCG) has been shown to be highly sensitive in evaluating the lacrimal drainage system. We aimed to compare the results of syringing/ probing with MDCG, and with surgical findings where available. We also aimed to determine whether MDCG is advisable in addition to syringing/probing when investigating epiphora.
METHODS: In a retrospective study, we looked at the records of 76 consecutive patients (86 eyes) presenting with epiphora over a period of 2 years (January 1993 to December 1994). All patients underwent syringing/probing and subsequent MDCG to determine the presence and level of nasolacrimal block. The results were then compared with surgical findings where available (46 eyes, 53%).
RESULTS: Surgical findings were predicted by MDCG in 95.5% of cases but in only 54% by probing. Probing findings agreed with MDCG in only 51% of cases. The main areas of disagreement were the presence of canalicular blocks and the presence of more than one block at different levels.
CONCLUSION: A combination of syringing/ probing and MDCG provides the most accurate pre-operative lacrimal assessment and should predict all the canalicular stenoses requiring intubation. In addition, MDCG can predict physiological duct blocks beyond canalicular blocks and thus alter surgical management.
METHODS: In a retrospective study, we looked at the records of 76 consecutive patients (86 eyes) presenting with epiphora over a period of 2 years (January 1993 to December 1994). All patients underwent syringing/probing and subsequent MDCG to determine the presence and level of nasolacrimal block. The results were then compared with surgical findings where available (46 eyes, 53%).
RESULTS: Surgical findings were predicted by MDCG in 95.5% of cases but in only 54% by probing. Probing findings agreed with MDCG in only 51% of cases. The main areas of disagreement were the presence of canalicular blocks and the presence of more than one block at different levels.
CONCLUSION: A combination of syringing/ probing and MDCG provides the most accurate pre-operative lacrimal assessment and should predict all the canalicular stenoses requiring intubation. In addition, MDCG can predict physiological duct blocks beyond canalicular blocks and thus alter surgical management.