Comparison of early versus standard timing for silicone stent removal following External Dacrocystorhinostomy under local anaesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: The first line treatment for nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) is external dacrocystorhinostomy (DCR). Following DCR, patients are required to return to Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology (TIO) six weeks postoperatively for the removal of a silicone stent. As the majority of patients travel large distances at significant cost to reach TIO, most often patients remain within Kathmandu during this six weeks interval. This places a large financial burden on patients. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was designed to compare patient outcomes after early (two weeks postoperatively) versus standard (six weeks postoperatively) removal of silicone stents. 50 selected patients were randomized into two equal groups. RESULTS: At the time of publication, 31 patients (14 in group A and 17 in group B) had completed three months follow up. A success rate of 92.9% was noted in Group A and a success rate of 94.1% observed in group B. No significant difference was found between the two groups for success rate and rate of complications. CONCLUSION: Early tube removal post DCR appears to cause no significant difference in outcome or complication rates compared to standard tube removal.

Probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) is a common condition causing excessive tearing in the first year of life. Infants present with excessive tearing or mucoid discharge from the eyes due to blockage of the nasolacrimal duct system, which can result in maceration of the skin of the eyelids and local infections, such as conjunctivitis, that may require antibiotics. The incidence of nasolacrimal duct obstruction in early childhood ranges from 5% to 20% and often resolves without surgery. Treatment options for this condition are either conservative therapy, including observation (or deferred probing), massage of the lacrimal sac and antibiotics, or probing the nasolacrimal duct to open the membranous obstruction at the distal nasolacrimal duct. Probing may be performed without anesthesia in the office setting or under general anesthesia in the operating room. Probing may serve to resolve the symptoms by opening the membranous obstruction; however, it may not be successful if the obstruction is due to a bony protrusion of the inferior turbinate into the nasolacrimal duct or when the duct is edematous (swollen) due to infection such as dacryocystitis. Additionally, potential complications with probing include creation of a false passage and injury to the nasolacrimal duct, canaliculi and puncta, bleeding, laryngospasm, or aspiration. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (2016, Issue 8); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 30 August 2016); Embase.com (1947 to 30 August 2016); PubMed (1948 to 30 August 2016); LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database; 1982 to 30 August 2016), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), last searched 14 August 2014; ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), searched 30 August 2016; and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en), searched 30 August 2016. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared probing (office-based or hospital-based under general anesthesia) versus no (or deferred) probing or other interventions (observation alone, antibiotic drops only, or antibiotic drops plus massage of the nasolacrimal duct). We did not include studies that compared different probing techniques or probing compared with other surgical procedures. We included studies in children aged three weeks to four years who may have presented with tearing and conjunctivitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for the included studies. We analyzed data using Review Manager software and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two RCTs and no ongoing studies; one of the included RCTs was registered. The studies reported on 303 eyes of 242 participants who had unilateral or bilateral congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. For both included studies, the interventions compared were immediate office-based probing to remove the duct obstruction versus deferred probing, if needed, after 6 months of observation or once the child reached a certain age.The primary outcome of the review, treatment success at 6 months, was reported partially in one study. Treatment success was not reported at this time point for all children in the immediate probing group; however, 77 of 117 (66%) eyes randomized to deferred probing had resolved without surgery 6 months after randomization and 40 (34%) eyes did not resolve without probing. For children who had unilateral NLDO, those randomized to immediate probing had treatment success more often than those who were randomized to deferred probing (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.78; 163 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Treatment success for all children was assessed in the study at age 18 months; as an ad hoc analysis in the included study, results were presented separately for children with unilateral and bilateral NLDO (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.28 and RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.06, respectively; very low-certainty evidence).In the other small study (26 eyes of 22 children), more eyes that received immediate probing were cured within one month after surgery compared with eyes that were randomized to deferred probing and analyzed at age 15 months (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.64). We considered the evidence to be low-certainty due to imprecision from the small study size and risk of bias concerns due to attrition bias.One study reported on the number of children that required reoperation; however, these data were reported only for immediate probing group. Nine percent of children with unilateral NLDO and 13% with bilateral NLDO required secondary procedures.One study reported cost-effectiveness of immediate probing versus deferred probing. The mean cost of treatment for immediate probing was less than for deferred probing; however, there is uncertainty as to whether there is a true cost difference (mean difference USD -139, 95% CI USD -377 to 94; moderate-certainty evidence).Reported complications of the treatment were not serious. One study reported that there were no complications for any surgery and no serious adverse events, while the other study reported that bleeding from the punctum occurred in 20% of all probings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects and costs of immediate versus deferred probing for NLDO are uncertain. Children who have unilateral NLDO may have better success from immediate office probing, though few children have participated in these trials, and investigators examined outcomes at disparate time points. Determining whether to perform the procedure and its optimal timing will require additional studies with greater power and larger, well-run clinical trials to help our understanding of the comparison.

Pain during external dacryocystorhinostomy with local anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: External dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is often performed under local anesthesia (LA) without adequate knowledge of the pain experienced by the patient. MATERIAL/METHODS: We subdivided our surgical technique into stages easily understood by the patients (introducing cotton tipped applicators, performing parabulbar injection, creating the incision, bone cracking (opening the ostium), manipulating the nose, intubating, closing the wound, and packing with gauze). A total of 50 patients ranging in age from 31 to 83 years of age (63.64±9.64) underwent external DCR. Each patient was asked 30 minutes after surgery to indicate the intensity of pain experienced at each stage of the surgery and during intramuscular (i.m.) injection of an antibiotic using a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Analysis of the VAS-based pain scores indicated 3 statistically equal occurrences of pain coinciding with the opening of the ostium, and receiving both parabulbar anesthetic and i.m. antibiotic injections. CONCLUSIONS: The level of pain experienced during the most unpleasant stage of external DCR (ostium opening) was similar to the pain experienced from an i.m. injection. Patients can be informed that pain during external DCR with local anesthesia is comparable to receiving an i.m. gluteal injection.

Endoscopic dacrocystorhinostomy: long-term results and evolution of surgical technique.

This study evaluated the long-term results of endoscopic dacrocystorhinostomy (DCR) performed as a day-case procedure under local anaesthesia. It assessed the patient satisfaction with the procedure by retrospective review and a questionnaire survey. Seventy patients were referred for endoscopic DCR to the senior author between 1997 and 2000. A success rate of 92 per cent was achieved at three months and it was possible to perform 85 per cent of cases under local anaesthetic; 91 per cent were discharged on the same day. Long-term follow up by postal survey revealed that the watering eye had improved following surgery in 83 per cent (follow up range = eight to 66 months; mean = 28.6 months). Eighty-eight per cent were satisfied with the tolerability of the procedure under local anaesthesia. The authors describe changes in technique, which evolved with their experience of the procedure. Endoscopic dacrocystorhinostomy can be performed safely and successfully as a day-case procedure under local anaesthesia with excellent results and with great satisfaction to the patients.