Inaccuracy of diagnosis in a cohort of patients on the waiting list for dacryocystorhinostomy when the diagnosis was made by only syringing the lacrimal system.
OBJECTIVE
Accurate identification of the factors contributing to epiphora is essential in directing appropriate management and treatment strategies. The authors applied a methodical strategy of assessment for epiphora to patients who were already on the waiting list for dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). The findings were compared to the original findings.


METHODS
Forty-four eyes of 35 patients listed for DCR were re-examined. All canaliculi were examined using four tests: dye disappearance, Jones 1 (dye retrieval), probing using Bowman probes, and syringing of the nasolacrimal duct (NLD) under local anesthesia. Some patients were examined using an endocanalicular mini-endoscope. Patients with NLD obstruction underwent DCR and those with canalicular and NLD stenosis underwent intubation of the lacrimal system-canaliculus, lacrimal sac, and nasolacrimal duct-using silicone stents. The authors refer to this as canaliculodacryocystoplasty (CDCP). The patients were assessed for symptoms of epiphora at 12 months. Forty-four eyes had been listed for DCR. They had been originally diagnosed, by means of lacrimal syringing, as NLD obstruction (24 eyes) or stenosis (12 eyes), and functional blocks (8 eyes).


RESULTS
Four out of the original 44 planned DCR surgeries were performed after re-evaluation. After re-examination, 28 lacrimal systems were found to have canalicular stenosis, 4 NLD stenosis, 4 NLD obstruction, 4 punctal phimosis, 3 ocular surface disease, and 1 patient was asymptomatic. Twenty-eight lacrimal systems underwent CDCP, 4 underwent DCR, 4 had punctoplasty, and 4 had probing alone. Three had treatment for ocular surface disease and one patient required no treatment. After a follow-up of 12 months, 41 (93%) systems had improvement or were free of their


CONCLUSIONS
Syringing of the lacrimal apparatus may result in a high false positive diagnosis of NLD obstruction. Canalicular pathology is not uncommon in this cohort of patients and may be underdiagnosed.
Beigi
B
B
Adnexal Unit, Department of Ophthalmology. Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Colney Lane, Norwich, UK. bijanbeigi@ukonline.co.uk
Uddin
J M
JM
McMullan
T F W
TF
Linardos
E
E
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D003608:Dacryocystorhinostomy; D003951:Diagnostic Errors; D005189:False Positive Reactions; D005260:Female; D005456:Fluorescent Dyes; D006801:Humans; D007440:Intubation / Q000379:methods; D007767:Lacrimal Duct Obstruction / Q000175:diagnosis*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009301:Nasolacrimal Duct / Q000473:pathology*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012395:Rose Bengal; D012965:Sodium Chloride; D015607:Stents; D007507:Therapeutic Irrigation / Q000379:methods*; D014850:Waiting Lists
D005456:Fluorescent Dyes; D012395:Rose Bengal; D012965:Sodium Chloride