Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: Should we continue lacrimal massage till 1 year or perform an office probing at 6 months? A clinical decision analysis approach

Management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: results of a national survey of paediatric and oculoplastic ophthalmologists

BACKGROUND

To survey variation in management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) by oculoplastic and paediatric ophthalmologists in the UK.

METHODS

A 14-question online survey was sent to all members of the British Oculoplastic Surgery Society (BOPSS) and the British and Irish Paediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Association (BIPOSA) in February 2020. The aim was to establish preferred primary, secondary and tertiary interventions for CNLDO treatment, with emphasis on the use of nasoendoscopy and ductal intubation. Results were compared with a national survey from 2007 to observe trends in management.

RESULTS

One hundred and three responses from single-speciality consultants were analysed. In total, 71.8% of CNLDO patients were assessed by paediatric ophthalmologists. Fluorescein dye disappearance test was the commonest investigation, and paediatric consultants were five times more likely to perform Jones test. No clinicians performed outpatient probing. Age of first intervention was most commonly 12 months, although more interventions are being conducted at younger ages than in 2007. Preferred primary procedure for both subspecialties was syringe and probe under general anaesthetic, with 43.9% of oculoplastic consultants using nasoendoscopy vs 12.9% of paediatric consultants. Most common re-do procedure for both subspecialties was nasoendoscopy-guided syringe and probe ± intubation. In contrast to 2007, dacryocystorhinostomy is now the commonest tertiary procedure, with endonasal approach twice as common as external.

CONCLUSION

Despite changes in approach since 2007, there is still considerable variation between oculoplastic and paediatric ophthalmologists regarding treatment preferences for CNLDO, particularly the use of nasoendoscopy. We propose a national audit of CNLDO treatment outcomes to potentially standardise treatment protocols.

Efficacy of Office-Based Nasolacrimal Duct Probing

PURPOSE

To analyze the efficacy of nasolacrimal duct probing conducted in the office for nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of 1,294 patients. Of those, 1,227 patients who underwent office-based nasolacrimal probings of the nasolacrimal duct at a single tertiary care center were included.

RESULTS

A total of 82 (6.7%) patients needed reprobing. Of the 82 patients who underwent a second procedure, 35 (43%) underwent a second in-office probing with a success rate of 77%. The 8 (22%) patients who failed the second in-office probing underwent probing and Crawford stent placement in the operating room and their symptoms resolved. For the 47 (57%) patients who failed the primary in-office probing and underwent operating room probing and stent placement, only 1 (2%) needed a second operating room probing and stent placement. Logistic regression analyses indicated an increased likelihood of needing a secondary procedure with increased age at the time of the first probing.

CONCLUSIONS

This large, retrospective analysis of office-based probings demonstrated a success rate of 93.3% with increased likelihood of not needing a second procedure with probing at a younger age. This study demonstrates an excellent success rate for in-office probings for patients both younger and older than 12 months. This not only shows a high rate of efficacy, but is also highly cost efficient when compared to primary probing in the operating room. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2019;56(1):50-54.].