International ophthalmology · 2026
Gastroesophageal and laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms in patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction and controls: a comparative study.
СтатьяСравнительное 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.
Tunçbilek Zehra, Arslan Gürcan Doğukan, Kılıç Songül, Türk Muhammed, Önder Feyza
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO) is a common cause of epiphora in adults. Chronic inflammation has been proposed as a contributing factor, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) have been hypothesized to play a potential role. This study aimed to compare GERD and LPR symptoms between patients with PANDO and controls.
METHODS: This retrospective case-control study included 110 patients with PANDO (previously treated PANDO group, n = 85; consecutive PANDO group undergoing DCR, n = 25) and 105 age- and sex-matched controls. The previously treated PANDO group comprised patients who had undergone external dacryocystorhinostomy over a five-year period, while the consecutive PANDO group undergoing DCR included newly diagnosed patients scheduled for surgery over one year. All participants completed the Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) and Reflux Symptom Index (RSI). Participants meeting predefined questionnaire-based criteria (RDQ score ≥ 15 or prior physician diagnosis for GERD; RSI score > 13 or prior physician diagnosis for LPR) were classified as having GERD- or LPR-related symptoms.
RESULTS: The prevalence of GERD-related symptoms was 33.5% in the PANDO group and 32.4% in controls (p = 0.692). LPR-related symptoms prevalence was 16.3% and 17.1%, respectively (p = 0.942). No statistically significant differences were observed between groups in total or subscale RDQ and RSI scores.
CONCLUSIONS: In this case-control study, reflux symptoms were not significantly more prevalent in patients with PANDO than in controls. Further studies incorporating objective diagnostic methods are warranted to clarify this relationship.
METHODS: This retrospective case-control study included 110 patients with PANDO (previously treated PANDO group, n = 85; consecutive PANDO group undergoing DCR, n = 25) and 105 age- and sex-matched controls. The previously treated PANDO group comprised patients who had undergone external dacryocystorhinostomy over a five-year period, while the consecutive PANDO group undergoing DCR included newly diagnosed patients scheduled for surgery over one year. All participants completed the Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) and Reflux Symptom Index (RSI). Participants meeting predefined questionnaire-based criteria (RDQ score ≥ 15 or prior physician diagnosis for GERD; RSI score > 13 or prior physician diagnosis for LPR) were classified as having GERD- or LPR-related symptoms.
RESULTS: The prevalence of GERD-related symptoms was 33.5% in the PANDO group and 32.4% in controls (p = 0.692). LPR-related symptoms prevalence was 16.3% and 17.1%, respectively (p = 0.942). No statistically significant differences were observed between groups in total or subscale RDQ and RSI scores.
CONCLUSIONS: In this case-control study, reflux symptoms were not significantly more prevalent in patients with PANDO than in controls. Further studies incorporating objective diagnostic methods are warranted to clarify this relationship.