medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista Mexicana de Oftalmología

Anales de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oftalmología y Archivos de la Asociación Para Evitar la Ceguera en México
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2004, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Oftalmol 2004; 78 (6)

Cinedacryocystography in the diagnosis of lacrimal obstruction in children

Schellini SA, Shiratori CA, Schellini RC, Padovani CR
Full text How to cite this article

Language: English
References: 9
Page: 303-306
PDF size: 236.97 Kb.


Key words:

Cinedacryocystography, epiphora, children, congenital nasolacrimal obstruction.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To analyze the cinedacryocystography in children with congenital nasolacrimal obstruction suspicion.
Methods: The cinedacryocystographic examination was done in 143 children (58% of girls and 42% of boys) younger than 5 years old, suspected of congenital nasolacrimal obstruction. The exams were done under general anesthesia and the children were probed immediately when obstruction was detected.
Results: Epiphora, discharge or both were the most common complaints. Nevertheless 11% children had undergone unsuccessfully probing once, no one had any radiologic evaluation previously. The cinedacryocystographic exam showed nasolacrimal duct obstruction in 65,73%. Permeable lacrimal vies were presented in 34,3% of the children with epiphora. The obstruction was mainly at the Arlt’s sinus. Using the cinedacryocystography, it was possible to observe the lacrimal sac enlargement and alterations in the contiguous structures such as hypertrophic turbinates (91,1%), sinusitis (44,6%) and septum deviation (24,1%).
Conclusion: Cinedacryocystographic evaluation provides important information about lacrimal system obstruction in children, therefore, it is useful in all children with suspected congenital lacrimal obstruction.


REFERENCES

  1. Guerry D, Kending-Jr EL. Congenital impatency in the nasolacrimal duct. Arch Ophthalmol, 1948; 39:183-204.

  2. Katowitz JA, Welsh MG. Timing of initial probing and irrigation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology, 1987; 94:698-705.

  3. Neetens A, Rubens MC. Treatment of congenital dacryostenosis. Adv Ophthal Plastic Reconstr Surg. New York, Pergamon, 1984. p. 105-109.

  4. Nelson LB, Calhoun JH, Menduke H. Medical management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Pediatrics, 1985; 76:172-175.

  5. Nucci P. La terapia antibiotica nell’obstruzzione congenita del dotto nasolacrimale. Min Pediatr, 1990; 42:189-191.

  6. Schellini SA, Moraes-Silva MRB, Schellini RC. Pseudo-obstrução nasolacrimal na infância. Arq Bras Octal, 1994a; 57:348-351.

  7. Schellini SA, Gaiotto PC, Schellini RC, Moraes-Silva MRB. Obstrução nasolacrimal congênita, diagnóstico e tratamento. Rev Bras Oftalmol, 1994b; 53:47-53.

  8. Waldapfel R. Location of congenital dacryostenosis in children. Am J Ophthalmol, 1954; 37:768-774.

  9. Castilho M, Merten DF, Weissler MC. Bilateral nasolacrimal duct mucocele, a rare cause of respiratory distress. AJNR, 1993; 14:1011-1013.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev Mex Oftalmol. 2004;78