Efficacy of office-based nasolacrimal duct probing

Austin Bach, Elizabeth Ann Vanner, Roberto Warman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze the efficacy of nasolacrimal duct probing conducted in the office for nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 1,294 patients. Of those, 1,227 patients who underwent office-based nasolacrimal probings of the nasolacrimal duct at a single tertiary care center were included. Results: A total of 82 (6.7%) patients needed reprobing. Of the 82 patients who underwent a second procedure, 35 (43%) underwent a second in-office probing with a success rate of 77%. The 8 (22%) patients who failed the second in-office probing underwent probing and Crawford stent placement in the operating room and their symptoms resolved. For the 47 (57%) patients who failed the primary in-office probing and underwent operating room probing and stent placement, only 1 (2%) needed a second operating room probing and stent placement. Logistic regression analyses indicated an increased likelihood of needing a secondary procedure with increased age at the time of the first probing. Conclusions: This large, retrospective analysis of office-based probings demonstrated a success rate of 93.3% with increased likelihood of not needing a second procedure with probing at a younger age. This study demonstrates an excellent success rate for in-office probings for patients both younger and older than 12 months. This not only shows a high rate of efficacy, but is also highly cost efficient when compared to primary probing in the operating room.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)50-54
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus
Volume56
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Ophthalmology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Efficacy of office-based nasolacrimal duct probing'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this