Nakamura Jutaro, Kamao Tomoyuki, Mitani Arisa, Mizuki Nobuhisa, Shiraishi Atsushi
Department of Ophthalmology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Toon, Ehime, 791-0295, Japan.
Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 236-0004, Japan.
Clin Ophthalmol. 2023 May 3;17:1277-1285. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S409662. eCollection 2023.
This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the lacrimal syringing test (syringing) in relation to dacryocystography (DCG) and dacryoendoscopy (DE) in lacrimal pathway (LP) obstruction.
We retrospectively reviewed 101 patients (188 LPs) who underwent syringing, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-DCG, and DE to diagnose the degree and site of LP obstruction. The degree of obstruction was classified into patent, partial obstruction, and complete obstruction. The degree of LP obstruction was determined by combining the findings of DE and CBCT-DCG and was designated as DCG+DE. When differentiating complete or partial obstruction on DE was uncertain, complete or partial obstruction was assigned if the DCG showed evidence of contrast media obstruction or passage, respectively. The consistency between syringing and DCG+DE was evaluated by calculating the weighted kappa coefficient.
The sensitivity and specificity of syringing were 94% and 89%, respectively. The weighted Cohen's kappa value of agreement between syringing and DCG+DE was κ = 0.73 ( = 0.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66-0.80, < 0.01). When divided into presaccal and postsaccal obstruction categories, the kappa values were κ = 0.40 ( = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.19-0.62, < 0.01) and 0.55 ( = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.37-0.73, < 0.01), respectively. Furthermore, when limited to common canaliculus obstruction (stenoses), which accounted for 78% (46 LPs) of the total presaccal obstructions, the kappa value was κ = 0.29 ( = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.05-0.54, = 0.021), which demonstrated the lowest consistency between syringing and DCG+DE.
Syringing was "substantially" in agreement with DCG+DE in detecting the degree of LP obstruction. Moreover, syringing was a sufficiently sensitive and specific test when performed by an experienced clinician. However, distinguishing between complete and partial obstructions by syringing was sometimes difficult, particularly in the common canaliculus obstruction (stenosis).
本研究旨在评估泪道冲洗试验(冲洗)在泪道(LP)阻塞方面相对于泪囊造影(DCG)和泪道内镜检查(DE)的准确性。
我们回顾性分析了101例患者(188条泪道),这些患者接受了冲洗、锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)-DCG和DE检查,以诊断LP阻塞的程度和部位。阻塞程度分为通畅、部分阻塞和完全阻塞。LP阻塞程度通过结合DE和CBCT-DCG的结果来确定,并指定为DCG+DE。当在DE上区分完全或部分阻塞不确定时,如果DCG分别显示造影剂阻塞或通过的证据,则指定为完全或部分阻塞。通过计算加权kappa系数评估冲洗与DCG+DE之间的一致性。
冲洗的敏感性和特异性分别为94%和89%。冲洗与DCG+DE之间的加权Cohen's kappa一致性值为κ = 0.73( = 0.04,95%置信区间[CI]:0.66-0.80, < 0.01)。当分为泪囊前和泪囊后阻塞类别时,kappa值分别为κ = 0.40( = 0.11,95% CI:0.19-0.62, < 0.01)和0.55( = 0.09,95% CI:0.37-0.73, < 0.01)。此外,当仅限于占泪囊前阻塞总数78%(46条泪道)的泪小管共同阻塞(狭窄)时,kappa值为κ = 0.29( = 0.12,95% CI:0.05-0.54, = 0.021),这表明冲洗与DCG+DE之间的一致性最低。
冲洗在检测LP阻塞程度方面与DCG+DE“基本”一致。此外,由经验丰富的临床医生进行冲洗时,该试验具有足够的敏感性和特异性。然而,通过冲洗区分完全和部分阻塞有时很困难,特别是在泪小管共同阻塞(狭窄)的情况下。