Beigi B, Uddin J M, McMullan T F W, Linardos E
Adnexal Unit, Department of Ophthalmology. Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Colney Lane, Norwich, UK.
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007 Jul-Aug;17(4):485-9. doi: 10.1177/112067210701700401.
Accurate identification of the factors contributing to epiphora is essential in directing appropriate management and treatment strategies. The authors applied a methodical strategy of assessment for epiphora to patients who were already on the waiting list for dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). The findings were compared to the original findings.
Forty-four eyes of 35 patients listed for DCR were re-examined. All canaliculi were examined using four tests: dye disappearance, Jones 1 (dye retrieval), probing using Bowman probes, and syringing of the nasolacrimal duct (NLD) under local anesthesia. Some patients were examined using an endocanalicular mini-endoscope. Patients with NLD obstruction underwent DCR and those with canalicular and NLD stenosis underwent intubation of the lacrimal system-canaliculus, lacrimal sac, and nasolacrimal duct-using silicone stents. The authors refer to this as canaliculodacryocystoplasty (CDCP). The patients were assessed for symptoms of epiphora at 12 months. Forty-four eyes had been listed for DCR. They had been originally diagnosed, by means of lacrimal syringing, as NLD obstruction (24 eyes) or stenosis (12 eyes), and functional blocks (8 eyes).
Four out of the original 44 planned DCR surgeries were performed after re-evaluation. After re-examination, 28 lacrimal systems were found to have canalicular stenosis, 4 NLD stenosis, 4 NLD obstruction, 4 punctal phimosis, 3 ocular surface disease, and 1 patient was asymptomatic. Twenty-eight lacrimal systems underwent CDCP, 4 underwent DCR, 4 had punctoplasty, and 4 had probing alone. Three had treatment for ocular surface disease and one patient required no treatment. After a follow-up of 12 months, 41 (93%) systems had improvement or were free of their
Syringing of the lacrimal apparatus may result in a high false positive diagnosis of NLD obstruction. Canalicular pathology is not uncommon in this cohort of patients and may be underdiagnosed.
准确识别导致泪溢的因素对于指导适当的管理和治疗策略至关重要。作者对已在等待泪囊鼻腔吻合术(DCR)名单上的患者应用了一种系统的泪溢评估策略。将结果与最初的结果进行比较。
对35例等待DCR的患者的44只眼睛进行了重新检查。使用四种检查方法对所有泪小管进行检查:染料消失试验、琼斯I型试验(染料回收试验)、使用鲍曼探针探查以及在局部麻醉下对鼻泪管(NLD)进行冲洗。部分患者使用泪小管微型内窥镜进行检查。患有NLD阻塞的患者接受DCR,而患有泪小管和NLD狭窄的患者则使用硅胶支架对泪道系统(泪小管、泪囊和鼻泪管)进行插管。作者将此称为泪小管泪囊成形术(CDCP)。在12个月时对患者的泪溢症状进行评估。44只眼睛已被列入DCR名单。它们最初通过泪道冲洗被诊断为NLD阻塞(24只眼)或狭窄(12只眼)以及功能性阻塞(8只眼)。
在重新评估后,原计划的44例DCR手术中有4例进行。重新检查后,发现28个泪道系统存在泪小管狭窄,4个NLD狭窄,4个NLD阻塞,4个泪点狭窄,3个眼表疾病,1例患者无症状。28个泪道系统接受了CDCP,4个接受了DCR,4个进行了泪点成形术,4个仅进行了探查。3例接受了眼表疾病治疗,有1例患者无需治疗。随访12个月后,41个(93%)泪道系统症状改善或消失。
泪道冲洗可能导致NLD阻塞的假阳性诊断率较高。在这组患者中泪小管病变并不少见,可能存在漏诊。