Amaç: Konjenital nazolakrimal kanal tıkanıklığı (KNLKT) nedeniyle sondalama girişimi uygulanan hastalarda sondalama yaşına göre girişimin başarısını ve başarıyı etkileyen faktörleri değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Göz Hastalıkları Kliniği'nde Ocak 2010-Aralık 2019 tarihleri arasında KNLKT tanısıyla sondalama girişimi uygulanan hastaların kayıtları retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Hastalar sondalama yaşlarına göre 12- 18 ay, 19-24 ay, 25-48 ay ve 48 ay üstü olacak şekilde 4 gruba ayrıldı. Başarılı sondalama, işlemden 2 hafta sonraki muayenede sulanma şikâyetinin olmaması, epiforanın ve kese bölgesine bastırıldığında punktumdan reflünün gözlenmemesi olarak kabul edildi. Bulgular: Çalışmaya 177 (85 kız ve 92 erkek) hastanın 206 gözü dâhil edildi. Ortalama sondalama yaşı 28,14±14,56 ay (12-61 ay) idi. Sondalama girişiminin başarı oranı tüm gözler için %88,8 olarak saptandı. Buna göre 12-18 ay arası sondalama yapılan gözlerde (n=58) başarı oranı %91,4; 19-24 ay arası sondalama yapılanlarda (n=45) %91,1; 25-48 ay arası sondalama yapılanlarda (n=85) %88,2 ve 48 aydan sonra sondalama yapılanlarda (n=18) %77,8 idi. Kırk sekiz aydan sonra sondalama yapılanlarda başarı oranı daha düşük bulunsa da gruplar arası fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildi (p=0,41). Cinsiyet (p=0,26), sondalama yaşı (p=0,25) ve sağ göz, sol göz ya da bilateral tutulum (p=0,63) başarı üzerinde etkisiz bulunurken, konjonktivit veya kronik dakriyosistit varlığı (p=0,004) ve sondalamayı takiben burundan floresein aspire edilebilmesinin başarı üzerinde etkili olduğu saptandı (p˂0,001). Sonuç: Nazolakrimal kanal sondalama girişiminin başarısı artan yaş ile azalsa da yüksek başarı oranları ile KNLKT tedavisinde ilk 5 yaşta güvenli ve uygulanabilir bir prosedürdür.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Konjenital nazolakrimal kanal tıkanıklığı; sondalama; epifora
Objective: To determine the success rate of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) according to the age at probing and to evaluate the other factors affecting the success rate of probing. Material and Methods: The records of patients who underwent probing with the diagnosis of CNLDO between January 2010 and December 2019 in Ankara University Faculty of Medicine Department of Ophthalmology were assessed retrospectively. The patients were divided into 4 groups based on their age at probing as 12-18 months, 19- 24 months, 25-48 months, and after 48 months. Successful probing was documented as remission of watering complaints, absence of epiphora and reflux from the punctum when pressed on the sac area in the examination 2 weeks after the procedure. Results: A total of 206 eyes of 177 patients were included in the study (85 female and 92 male). The mean probing age was 28.14±14.56 months (12-61 months). The success rate of probing surgery was found to be 88.8% for all patients. The success rate was 91.4% in 12-18 month-olds (n=58); 91.1% in 19-24 montholds (n=45); 88.2% in 25-48 month-olds (n=85); and 77.8% in over 48- month-olds (n=18). Although the success rate was found to be lower in those who had probing at over 48 months, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p=0.41). We found that gender (p=0.26), age at probing (p=0.25), or bilaterality (p=0.63) were not effective, but having conjunctivitis or chronic dacryocystitis (p=0.004), and to aspirate fluorescein from the nose after probing were effective on surgical success (p˂0.001). Conclusion: Although the success rates look to be decreasing slightly with age, probing of the nasolacrimal duct is a safe and viable procedure for children under 5 years of age with CNLDO with high success rates.
Keywords: Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction; probing; epiphora
- Sathiamoorthi S, Frank RD, Mohney BG. Incidence and clinical characteristics of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103(4):527-9. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- MacEwen CJ, Young JD. Epiphora during the first year of life. Eye (Lond). 1991;5 ( Pt 5):596-600. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Spaniol K, Stupp T, Melcher C, Beheiri N, Eter N, Prokosch V. Association between congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and delivery by cesarean section. Am J Perinatol. 2015;32(3):271-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Bekmez S, Eriş E, Altan EV, Dursun V. The role of bacterial etiology in the tear duct ınfections secondary to congenital nasolacrimal duct obstructions. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(7):2214-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Petersen RA, Robb RM. The natural course of congenital obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1978;15(4):246-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Golash V, Kaur H, Athwal S, Chakartash R, Laginaf M, Khandwala M. Management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: results of a national survey of paediatric and oculoplastic ophthalmologists. Eye (Lond). 2021;35(7):1930-6. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Aldahash FD, Al-Mubarak MF, Alenizi SH, Al-Faky YH. Risk factors for developing congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2014;28(1):58-60. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Tavakoli M, Osigian CJ, Saksiriwutto P, Reyes-Capo DP, Choi CJ, Vanner EA, et al. Association between congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and mode of delivery at birth. J AAPOS. 2018;22(5):381-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Resolution of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction with nonsurgical management. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(6):730-4. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Sathiamoorthi S, Frank RD, Mohney BG. Spontaneous resolution and timing of intervention in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136(11):1281-6. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Robb RM. Success rates of nasolacrimal duct probing at time intervals after 1 year of age. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(7):1307-9; discussion 1309-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Katowitz JA, Welsh MG. Timing of initial probing and irrigation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology. 1987;94(6):698-705. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Nucci P, Capoferri C, Alfarano R, Brancato R. Conservative management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1989;26(1):39-43. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kashkouli MB, Beigi B, Parvaresh MM, Kassaee A, Tabatabaee Z. Late and very late initial probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: what is the cause of failure? Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(9):1151-3. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Honavar SG, Prakash VE, Rao GN. Outcome of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in older children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(1):42-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mannor GE, Rose GE, Frimpong-Ansah K, Ezra E. Factors affecting the success of nasolacrimal duct probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127(5):616-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Perveen S, Sufi AR, Rashid S, Khan A. Success rate of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction at various ages. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2014;9(1):60-9. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, Repka MX, Chandler DL, Beck RW, Crouch ER 3rd, Donahue S, et al. Primary treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction with probing in children younger than 4 years. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(3):577-84.e3. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Esgin H, Özgür S, Erda S. Doğumsal nazolakrimal kanal tıkanıklıklarında sondalama zamanı [Probing time for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction]. T Klin Oftalmoloji. 1999;8(1):56-9. [Link]
- Ciftçi F, Akman A, Sönmez M, Unal M, Güngör A, Yaylali V. Systematic, combined treatment approach to nasolacrimal duct obstruction in different age groups. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2000;10(4):324-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Erdoğan H, Toker Mİ, Arıcı MK, Akbulut M, Topalkara A. Doğumsal nazolakrimal kanal tıkanıklığında lavaj-sonda uygulaması sonuçlarımız [Our results of probing application in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction]. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2004;34(2):98-102. [Link]
- Çağlar Ç, Batur M, Yaşar T, Çinal A. Doğumsal nazolakrimal kanal tıkanıklığında erken ve geç yaşlarda uygulanan lakrimal kanal masaj ve sondalama tedavisinin sonuçları [The outcomes of lacrimal massage or probing treatments at early and late ages for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction]. Turk Pediatri Arsivi. 2010;45(4):359-65. [Crossref]
- Zengin N, Zengin MÖ. Doğumsal nazolakrimal kanal tıkanıklığı tedavisinde sondalama yönteminin etkinliği ve zamanlaması [The effectiveness and timing of probing for the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction]. İzmir Dr. Behçet Uz Çocuk Hast Dergisi. 2014;4(2):123-7. [Link]
- Zor KR, Küçük E, Yılmaz Öztorun Z. Outcomes and comparison of nasolacrimal probing for patients older than 12 months. Ther Adv Ophthalmol. 2020;12:2515841420927138. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Zilelioğlu G, Hoşal BM. The results of late probing in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Orbit. 2007;26(1):1-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Nakayama T, Watanabe A, Rajak S, Yamanaka Y, Sotozono C. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction continues trend for spontaneous resolution beyond first year of life. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104(8):1161-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Gupta N, Neeraj C, Smriti B, Sima D. A comparison of the success rates of endoscopic-assisted probing in the treatment of membranous congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction between younger and older children and its correlation with the thickness of the membrane at the Valve of Hasner. Orbit. 2018;37(4):257-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Miller AM, Chandler DL, Repka MX, Hoover DL, Lee KA, Melia M, et al. Office probing for treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction in infants. J AAPOS. 2014;18(1):26-30. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Lee C, Jeong SM, Kim GJ, Joo EY, Song MH, Sa HS. Efficacy and safety of ınhalation sedation during office probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Clin Med. 2021;10(8):1800. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Morrison DG, Binenbaum G, Chang MY, Heidary G, Trivedi RH, Galvin JA, et al. Office- or facility-based probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2021;128(6):920-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Bothra N, Bansal O, Sharma A, Ali MJ. Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction Update Study (CUP Study): Report III. analysis of earlier failed probing without endoscopy guidance. Semin Ophthalmol. 2022;37(2):249-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
.: İşlem Listesi