PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To investigate long-term outcome and report reoperation rate of non-infected, complete acquired lacrimal drainage obstruction (ALDO) treated with canaliculodacryocystoplasty (CDCP) depending on site of stenosis.
METHODS: Consecutive adult patients with non-infected, complete ALDO treated with CDCP were followed for 76 months. Location of stenosis at preoperative visit and intraoperative probing was recorded, and during follow-up, recurrence of stenosis prompting additional surgery and complications were noted. Survival analysis was applied to compare reoperation rate depending on site of stenosis. A follow-up questionnaire was sent to patients not requiring reoperation asking to grade current epiphora problems.
RESULTS: Among 85 included cases (71 patients), 57 were classified as canalicular stenosis and 28 as nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) preoperatively. At the end of follow-up, 39% (33/85) of cases had required additional surgery due to persistent/recurrent symptoms. No statistical difference was found between these groups. During CDCP, 25 of the 57 preoperatively classified canalicular stenosis were found to have an additional obstruction below the sac. The group with only canalicular stenosis had a statistically significant higher survival compared with cases with NLDO or multiple obstructions (p = 0.03). Of patients responding to the follow-up questionnaire, 11/37 cases experienced epiphora often or constant.
CONCLUSIONS: Treating complete NLDO with CDCP results in a high reoperation rate and seems an insufficient alternative. Canaliculodacryocystoplasty (CDCP) may be discussed if preoperative examination indicates canalicular stenosis and dacryocystorhinostomy is not desirable. However, the patient needs to be aware of the higher risk for additional surgery, especially if a second stenosis is found during probing.
METHODS: Consecutive adult patients with non-infected, complete ALDO treated with CDCP were followed for 76 months. Location of stenosis at preoperative visit and intraoperative probing was recorded, and during follow-up, recurrence of stenosis prompting additional surgery and complications were noted. Survival analysis was applied to compare reoperation rate depending on site of stenosis. A follow-up questionnaire was sent to patients not requiring reoperation asking to grade current epiphora problems.
RESULTS: Among 85 included cases (71 patients), 57 were classified as canalicular stenosis and 28 as nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) preoperatively. At the end of follow-up, 39% (33/85) of cases had required additional surgery due to persistent/recurrent symptoms. No statistical difference was found between these groups. During CDCP, 25 of the 57 preoperatively classified canalicular stenosis were found to have an additional obstruction below the sac. The group with only canalicular stenosis had a statistically significant higher survival compared with cases with NLDO or multiple obstructions (p = 0.03). Of patients responding to the follow-up questionnaire, 11/37 cases experienced epiphora often or constant.
CONCLUSIONS: Treating complete NLDO with CDCP results in a high reoperation rate and seems an insufficient alternative. Canaliculodacryocystoplasty (CDCP) may be discussed if preoperative examination indicates canalicular stenosis and dacryocystorhinostomy is not desirable. However, the patient needs to be aware of the higher risk for additional surgery, especially if a second stenosis is found during probing.
摘要：
暂无翻译
