Balloon catheter dilation and nasolacrimal duct intubation for treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction after failed probing

Michael X. Repka, Danielle L. Chandler, Jonathan M. Holmes, Darren L. Hoover, Christine L. Morse, Susan Schloff, David I. Silbert, D. Robbins Tien

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

37 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To compare the outcomes of balloon catheter dilation and nasolacrimal intubation as treatment for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction after failed probing in children younger than 4 years. Methods: We conducted a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter study that enrolled 159 children aged 6 months to younger than 48 months who had a history of a single failed nasolacrimal duct probing and at least 1 of the following clinical signs of nasolacrimal duct obstruction: epiphora, mucous discharge, or increased tear lake. One hundred ninety-nine eyes underwent either balloon catheter nasolacrimal duct dilation or nasolacrimal duct intubation. Treatment success was defined as absence of epiphora, mucous discharge, or increased tear lake at the outcome visit 6 months after surgery. Results: Treatment success was reported in 65 of 84 eyes (77%; 95% confidence interval, 65%-85%) in the balloon catheter dilation group compared with 72 of 88 eyes (84% after adjustment for intereye correlation; 74%-91%) in the nasolacrimal intubation group (risk ratio for success for intubation vs balloon dilation, 1.08; 0.95-1.22). Conclusion: Both balloon catheter dilation and nasolacrimal duct intubation alleviate the clinical signs of persistent nasolacrimal duct obstruction in a similar percentage of patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)633-639
Number of pages7
JournalArchives of ophthalmology
Volume127
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2009

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Balloon catheter dilation and nasolacrimal duct intubation for treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction after failed probing'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this