International ophthalmology · 2026
The role of intubation and dacryocystorhinostomy in the management of functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Ang Terence, Muthineni Veda, Almater Abdullah, Selva Dinesh
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To review the role of nasolacrimal intubation and dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) in functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction (FNLDO).
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted from inception to the 31st March 2025 on PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases. All studies describing a clinical diagnosis of "functional" obstruction was included. These included studies referencing historical variations of the term "functional block", "partial obstruction" and its associated clinical tests, such as patent syringing and/or positive Jones I and /or I testing", and/or adjunctive imaging including dacryocystogram (DCG) and/or dacryoscintigraphy (DSG). Studies depicting patients < 18 years-old, "complete" acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction, clear evidence of NLDS; and ongoing epiphora despite prior DCR and anatomical patency were excluded.
RESULTS: The search yielded 19 studies including 15 retrospective and 4 prospective studies. In 5 studies, patients were clearly defined as FNLDO with patent lacrimal syringing and/or Jones testing, DCG excluding nasolacrimal stenosis, and, if available, DSG to characterise the location of drainage delay. The remaining studies included terms such as "functional block" or "functional epiphora" defined as nasolacrimal duct patency via syringing only; and patent syringing and delayed DSG, without DCG excluding nasolacrimal duct stenosis (NLDS). Two studies were retrospective comparative studies between nasolacrimal intubation and DCR. Complete resolution for endoscopic DCR ranged from 64.7-97.2%, external DCR ranged from 53.8-94.1%; and nasolacrimal intubation ranged from 34.1-76%.
CONCLUSION: Characterising the nature and extent of impaired nasolacrimal tear drainage is imperative in determining the most appropriate intervention. In FNLDO, DCR appears to have higher success rates than nasolacrimal intubation. Intubation represents a less invasive option for patients. Ultimately, determining appropriate management requires patient education and informed consent regarding the available options, efficacy, risks and clinical outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted from inception to the 31st March 2025 on PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases. All studies describing a clinical diagnosis of "functional" obstruction was included. These included studies referencing historical variations of the term "functional block", "partial obstruction" and its associated clinical tests, such as patent syringing and/or positive Jones I and /or I testing", and/or adjunctive imaging including dacryocystogram (DCG) and/or dacryoscintigraphy (DSG). Studies depicting patients < 18 years-old, "complete" acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction, clear evidence of NLDS; and ongoing epiphora despite prior DCR and anatomical patency were excluded.
RESULTS: The search yielded 19 studies including 15 retrospective and 4 prospective studies. In 5 studies, patients were clearly defined as FNLDO with patent lacrimal syringing and/or Jones testing, DCG excluding nasolacrimal stenosis, and, if available, DSG to characterise the location of drainage delay. The remaining studies included terms such as "functional block" or "functional epiphora" defined as nasolacrimal duct patency via syringing only; and patent syringing and delayed DSG, without DCG excluding nasolacrimal duct stenosis (NLDS). Two studies were retrospective comparative studies between nasolacrimal intubation and DCR. Complete resolution for endoscopic DCR ranged from 64.7-97.2%, external DCR ranged from 53.8-94.1%; and nasolacrimal intubation ranged from 34.1-76%.
CONCLUSION: Characterising the nature and extent of impaired nasolacrimal tear drainage is imperative in determining the most appropriate intervention. In FNLDO, DCR appears to have higher success rates than nasolacrimal intubation. Intubation represents a less invasive option for patients. Ultimately, determining appropriate management requires patient education and informed consent regarding the available options, efficacy, risks and clinical outcomes.