|Year : 1965 | Volume
| Issue : 3 | Page : 117-118
Dacryocystostomy-probing-treatment for blockage of naso-lacrimal duct
Krishna Swami Mehra
Depart. Of Ophthalmology, College Of Medical Sciences, Benares Hindu University, Varanasi, India
Krishna Swami Mehra
Depart. Of Ophthalmology, College Of Medical Sciences, Benares Hindu University, Varanasi
|How to cite this article:|
Mehra KS. Dacryocystostomy-probing-treatment for blockage of naso-lacrimal duct. Indian J Ophthalmol 1965;13:117-8
|How to cite this URL:|
Mehra KS. Dacryocystostomy-probing-treatment for blockage of naso-lacrimal duct. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 1965 [cited 2013 May 21];13:117-8. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?1965/13/3/117/39230
Probing as a permanent cure, for the blockage of naso-lacrimal duct has been advocated in the past, but is not very popular today.
Duke Elder (1952) is of the opinion that syringing the lacrimal passage with antibiotics could result in a permanent cure, Dayal (1962) has produced better results by probing followed by syringing with corticosteroids, antibiotics and proteolytic enzyme. Mehra (1965) has claimed successful results with visine.
These various agents- antibiotics, corticosteroids, proteolytic enzyme and visine have been tried only when probing was successful. When probing is not successful either a dacryocystectomy or a D.C.R. has to be done.
Probing of the nasolacrimal passages has fallen into disrepute, as it is a blind process, by which a false passage can easily be created. However Dayal (1962) and Mehra (1965) have reported successful cases of probing followed by syringing with antibiotics, zonulysin, hycine, visine and other agents. Stallard (1958) intubated an acrylic tube after probing. It was the object of the author to modify the technique of probing, by cutting down the sac wall and probing under direct vision, thus reducing the chances of a false passage, whilst at the same time obviating the necessity of the more drastic operations of D.C.R. or dacryocystectomy. It has the added advantage, that it still leaves the door open to perform either of these two operations, should the procedure under discussion fail.
| Material and Methods|| |
The patients in this series were between the ages of 20-50 years and belonged to both sexes. Their chief complaint was watering of the eye, the duration varying from five months to three years. The watering was due to blocked naso-lacrimal duct as confirmed by syringing. In this series only those patients, who had no history of acute or subacute dacryocystitis were operated and in whom probing was unsuccessful through the puncta. Out of the ten cases four were admitted in the Hospital while the rest were treated as out-door patients.
Procedure: Two days before operation the patients were given one injection of penicillin and streptomycin daily which was continued for a week. One day before operation one ampoule of Clauden was given intramuscularly and another, one hour before the operation. The cases were operated under local anaesthesia.
The incision was the same as that for dacryocystectomy, but was extended a little downwards, so as to expose the upper end of the naso-lacrimal duct. Skin, orbicularis muscle and lacrimal fascia were incised and the anterior surface of the sac defined. The junction of sac and naso-lacrimal duct was also defined clearly. A mid line incision 3 mm. long was made in the anterior sac wall, 3 or 4 mm. above the junction of the sac and naso-lacrimal duct. A lacrimal probe No. 3 or 4 was passed into the sac cavity through the incision in the sac wall. The probe was passed downwards, backwards and laterally in the direction of the nasolacrimal duct. Some difficulty was felt in probing. With extra care and applying some force the probe could be passed through the naso lacrimal duct thus opening up the duct. It was confirmed by seeing the tip of the probe in the nasal cavity. The probe was left there for five minutes and then removed. Gentle syringing with the mixture of one c.c. of penicillin solution (5000 units per c.c.) + one c.c. of 1% streptomycine solution + one c.c. of hycin + one c.c. of zonulysin (1 in 5,000 freshly made sol.) + one c.c. of visine (0.05% sol.) was done through the sac wall incision into the nasolacrimal duct. The incision of the sac wall was closed by two interrupted four zero catgut sutures. The skin incision was closed by interrupted silk sutures. The patient was put on Decadoron tablets by mouth-2 tablets T.D.S. for three days, then one tablet T.D.S. for another three days and then half tablet T.D.S. for another three days-to lessen the fibrosis. The patient was dressed daily with hycin + Visine drops. Skin stitches were removed on the seventh day. On the tenth day of operation syringing with normal saline was done, and the patency of nasolacrimal duct was noted. Syringing with a mixture of penicillin + Streptomycine + hycin + zonulysin + visine was repeated on every alternate day for two weeks. Patients were called for a follow up every week or two weeks, and syringing with the same solution was done.
Out of 10 patients who were operated and followed for 5 to 6 months in 6 watering from the eye was relieved and naso-lacrimal duct also remained patent and thus constituted 60% of our successful cases.
It appears that the four cases, which showed failure, most probably developed fibrosis again in the naso-lacrimal duct following the procedure.
In all these four patients, in whom this technique had failed, excision of the sac was done.
By this technique the patient is relieved of epiphora, which persists after sac excision and is saved the botheration of undergoing a D.C.R. If probing cannot be done after incising the sac wall, then the sac must be excised.
| Summary|| |
A technique in which probing is done by incising the wall of the lacrimal sac, followed by syringing with penicillin + streptomycin + hycin + zonulysin + visine is described. In six patients out of ten the results were encouraging.
(The combination of penicillin + streptomycine + hycin + visine + zonulysin was used, as it has been shown by Mehra (1965), that there is synergistic action of all these drugs.)
| References|| |
|1.||Dayal Y. (1962) J. All-India Ophthal. Soc. 10: 61. |
|2.||Duke Elder S.-1952, Text Book of Ophthalmology, Vol. 5, p. 5300, Kim- ton, London. |
|3.||Mehra, K. S., (1965) Amer. J. of Ophthal, 59:3 |
|4.||Stallard, H. B. (1951) Eye Surgery -third edition, p. 309, John Wright & Sons Ltd., Bristol. |