DAVARI; YAGHOUBI; HEYDARI; MIRI; MASOUDIAN
Volume 14, Issue 3 , September and October 2007, , Pages 154-158
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Congenital nosolachrymal duct obstruction is one of the common disorders characterized by tearing and mucoid or mucopurulent discharge in children. The most common site of obstruction is the Hasner Value. About 20% of infants suffer from tearing which spontaneously improves within ...
Read More
Background and Purpose: Congenital nosolachrymal duct obstruction is one of the common disorders characterized by tearing and mucoid or mucopurulent discharge in children. The most common site of obstruction is the Hasner Value. About 20% of infants suffer from tearing which spontaneously improves within the first year of life in 90%. As there is no risk of aspiration with the air injection, it was adopted for comparison with saline injection. Therefore, this research was conducted to compare the success rate of the conventional method (probing with irrigation) and the air injection in infants.
Methods and Materials: This study was conducted as clinical trial in which 61 patients (with the age range of 9-24 months) (76 eyes) with congenital nosolachrymal duct obstruction, not responding to conservative treatment, was randomly assigned into one of the two groups. They were assessed before and after probing using Munk's scale. Their follow-up included lachrymal massage and antibiotic drops and assessment in 2 weeks, one month and three months after probing. A few cases were excluded from the study for irregular follow-up participations. Chisquare was used for data analysis.
Results: Out of 34 male eyes and 42 female eyes, 33 and 42 eyes recovered respectively upon the final follow-up (three months after probing). Out of 30 patients probed with saline, after two weeks, 31 eyes (86.1%) recovered after two weeks; 34 eyes (94.4%) after one month and 34 eyes (94.4%) after three months.
Out of 31 patients poobed with air injection, the recovery rates after two weeks, one month and three months follow-up, 33 eyes (82.5%), 38 eyes (95%) and 38 (95%) respectively.
Conclusion: As three is no risk of aspiration with the air injection and the outcomes are similar to the irrigation method, the researchers recommend probing with air injection to be substituted to saline irrigation.