[Impact of age on success rate of lacrimal duct irrigation with silicone tube intubation in connatal lacrimal duct stenosis].

BACKGROUND Irrigation of the lacrimal duct with silicone tube intubation (TWS/S) remains the preferred treatment in persisting connatal lacrimal duct stenosis (kTWS). The timepoint of operation is however discussed controversely. On the one hand, it is recommended to wait for spontaneous opening of the lacrimal duct within the first year of life, on the other hand a later operation may trigger inflammatory changes within the lacrimal duct system influencing the success rate of the operation negatively. The aim of this study was to analyze the best time point of operation regarding the long-term success rate of the operation. PATIENTS/MATERIALS AND METHODS 411 lacrimal ducts of 316 children with kTWS between 0 and 48 months of age (164 male, 156 female), who had undergone TWS with S because of kTWS at a tertiary eye care centre between 2007-2011 were included in this study. The children were divided into 6 groups of age (0-6, 7-12, 13-18, 19-24, 24-36, > 36 months) at the time of operation. The operative success was retrospectively evaluated after 36 months. The groups were compared and differences in late success rate analyzed statistically. RESULTS The average success of operation of TWS/S in kTWS was 89 % (366 of 411 lacrimal ducts). The success rate of operation differed between the groups. If operated at the age of 0-6 months the operation was successful in 94 %, at the age 7-12 months in 91 %, between 13-18 months in 90.5 %, from 19-24 months in 88 %, and from 25-36 months in only 84.5 %. The success rate was therewith at the age of 25-36 months significantly lower than at the age of 0-6 months (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION TWS/S in kTWS has overall a very high rate of success. The success of the operation decreases however in correlation with age at time of operation and shows with > 25 months significantly poorer results than at 0-6 months. The choice of the best time point for operation merits further investigation.

[1]  G. Lang,et al.  8.2 Bakterielles Keimspektrum bei kindlichen Tränenwegsstenosen , 2015 .

[2]  E. Osman,et al.  Evaluation of treatment modalities and prognostic factors in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. , 2012, Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

[3]  W. Reith,et al.  Orbita – Anatomie, Entwicklung und Fehlbildungen , 2008, Der Radiologe.

[4]  R. Beck,et al.  Primary treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction with probing in children younger than 4 years. , 2008, Ophthalmology.

[5]  O. Schwenn,et al.  Pränatale Diagnosestellung von postsakkalen Tränenwegsstenosen , 2008, Der Ophthalmologe.

[6]  Rajat D Maheshwari.  Results of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children older than 13 months of age. , 2005, Indian journal of ophthalmology.

[7]  R. Cumming,et al.  Nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children: outcome of intubation. , 2004, Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

[8]  M. Kashkouli,et al.  Initial nasolacrimal duct probing in children under age 5: cure rate and factors affecting success. , 2002, Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

[9]  V. Yaylalı,et al.  Systematic, Combined Treatment Approach to Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Different Age Groups , 2000, European journal of ophthalmology.

[10]  G. Rao,et al.  Outcome of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in older children. , 2000, American journal of ophthalmology.

[11]  G. Rose,et al.  Factors affecting the success of nasolacrimal duct probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. , 1999, American journal of ophthalmology.

[12]  R. Robb.  Success rates of nasolacrimal duct probing at time intervals after 1 year of age. , 1998, Ophthalmology.

[13]  J. Zwaan.  Treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction before and after the age of 1 year. , 1997, Ophthalmic surgery and lasers.

[14]  C. MacEwen,et al.  Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in the second year of life: A multicentre trial of management , 1996, Eye.

[15]  T. Paul,et al.  Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: natural history and the timing of optimal intervention. , 1994, Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus.

[16]  F. Steinkogler,et al.  The treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: Primary sufficient therapy avoids chronic inflammation or dacryocystorhinostomy , 1994 .

[17]  C. MacEwen,et al.  Epiphora during the first year of life , 1991, Eye.

[18]  C. Leone,et al.  The success rate of silicone intubation in congenital lacrimal obstruction. , 1990, Ophthalmic surgery.

[19]  J. Katowitz,et al.  TIMING OF SILASTIC TUBING REMOVAL AFTER INTUBATION FOR CONGENITAL NASOLACRIMAL DUCT OBSTRUCTION , 1989, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[20]  P. Nucci,et al.  Conservative management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. , 1989, Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus.

[21]  J. Katowitz,et al.  Timing of initial probing and irrigation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. , 1987, Ophthalmology.

[22]  J. Calhoun,et al.  Medical management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. , 1985, Pediatrics.

[23]  J. Rathbun,et al.  Silicone tube intubation of the lacrimal drainage system. , 1979, Archives of ophthalmology.