Is it necessary to accompany probing with endoscopy in cases of congenital nasolacrimal canal obstruction?

Objective: To compare the results of probing with and without endoscopy in cases of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction who had previously not undergone probing.

Methods: Fifty-one children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction who underwent surgical intervention between June 2007 and April 2009 in our hospital were included in the study. Patients who had had previous probings were excluded from the study. Conventional probing was performed in 37 eyes of 25 patients, and probing with intranasal endoscopic visualization in 36 eyes of 26 patients. Diagnosis was based on history of epiphora since birth or shortly after, and fluorescein dye disappearance test.

Results: Thirty-two of 37 eyes (86.48%) were cured by probing. Of the 5 cases with complaints, 1 had lacrimal sac fistula. Thirty-four of 36 eyes (94.44%) were cured by probing guided by endoscope observation. Thirty-two cases had stenosis at the lower end of the nasolacrimal duct which required probing. In two cases the probe passed submucosally to the floor of the nose. In two cases a false passage was made at the upper end of the inferior meatus. In these cases, the operation was continued by repeating the process until the distal end of the nasolacrimal canal was seen to have been passed.

Conclusion: Probing with endoscopy may be excessive in primary cases but in cases which have undergone unsuccessful probing, it is useful for visualization of anomalies in the lower nasolacrimal canal and to obtain the correct anatomic position for the probe.