Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2014
Office probing for treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction in infants.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Miller Aaron M, Chandler Danielle L, Repka Michael X, Hoover Darren L, Lee Katherine A, Melia Michele, Rychwalski Paul J, Silbert David I, Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, Beck Roy W, Crouch Eric R, Donahue Sean, Holmes Jonathan M, Quinn Graham E, Sala Nick A, Schloff Susan, Wallace David K, Foster Nicole C, Frick Kevin D, Golden Richard P, Lambert Scott R, Tien D Robbins, Weakley David R
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine whether demographic or clinical factors are associated with the outcome of office-based nasolacrimal duct probing for the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO).
METHODS: In two multicenter prospective studies, 384 eyes of 304 children aged 6 to <15 months with NLDO underwent a nasolacrimal duct probing performed in the office using topical anesthesia. Treatment success, defined as no clinical signs of NLDO (epiphora, increased tear lake, or mucous discharge) and no reoperation, was assessed 1 month after probing in one study and 6 months after probing in the other study. Data from both studies were pooled to evaluate associations between baseline characteristics and treatment success.
RESULTS: Office probing was successful in 75% of eyes overall (95% CI, 70%-80%). The procedure was less successful in eyes of children with bilateral NLDO compared with unilateral NLDO (63% vs 80%; relative risk = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]) and in eyes that had 2 or 3 clinical signs of NLDO compared with one (71% vs 83%; relative risk = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]). Treatment success did not appear to be related to age, specific clinical signs of NLDO, prior treatment, or research study.
CONCLUSIONS: Performing nasolacrimal duct probing in the office successfully treats NLDO in the majority of cases in children aged 6 to <15 months. The success rate is lower with bilateral disease or when more than one clinical sign of NLDO is present.
METHODS: In two multicenter prospective studies, 384 eyes of 304 children aged 6 to <15 months with NLDO underwent a nasolacrimal duct probing performed in the office using topical anesthesia. Treatment success, defined as no clinical signs of NLDO (epiphora, increased tear lake, or mucous discharge) and no reoperation, was assessed 1 month after probing in one study and 6 months after probing in the other study. Data from both studies were pooled to evaluate associations between baseline characteristics and treatment success.
RESULTS: Office probing was successful in 75% of eyes overall (95% CI, 70%-80%). The procedure was less successful in eyes of children with bilateral NLDO compared with unilateral NLDO (63% vs 80%; relative risk = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]) and in eyes that had 2 or 3 clinical signs of NLDO compared with one (71% vs 83%; relative risk = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]). Treatment success did not appear to be related to age, specific clinical signs of NLDO, prior treatment, or research study.
CONCLUSIONS: Performing nasolacrimal duct probing in the office successfully treats NLDO in the majority of cases in children aged 6 to <15 months. The success rate is lower with bilateral disease or when more than one clinical sign of NLDO is present.