Glyxambi
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 2639
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
   Table of Contents      
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 61  |  Issue : 12  |  Page : 698-700

Prevalence of amblyopia in children undergoing nasolacrimal duct irrigation and probing


Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Training and Research Hospital, Eye Clinic, Istanbul, Turkey

Date of Submission24-Jan-2013
Date of Acceptance15-Jun-2013
Date of Web Publication9-Jan-2014

Correspondence Address:
Ozlen Rodop Ozgur
Basıbuyuk mah. Emek Cad. Narcıty, E1 Blok, D:4, Maltepe/Istanbul
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.124737

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Purpose: To investigate ambylopia and amblyopia risk factors of children who underwent nasolacrimal duct (NLD) irrigation and probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO). Materials and Methods: The medical records of patients who had undergone NLD irrigation and probing for CNLDO at an age of 3 years or younger were reviewed, and 51 of the patients were recalled between October 1 and December 31, 2011 for a detailed ophthalmic examination to determinate amblyopia or amblyopia risk factors. Amblyopia was accepted as difference in visual acuity of two or more Snellen lines between the two eyes or visual acuity of 20/30 or worse in either eye. Results: The median age of the 51 patients to whom NLD irrigation and probing were attempted for CNLDO was 23 months. CNLDO affected a total of 70 eyes. All patients were reviewed for best-corrected visual acuity, refractive errors, and strabismus at a median age of 70.5 months (range 31-95 months). Amblyopia or amblyopia risk factors were identified in 14 patients (27.5%). One child (7.15%) had only strabismus, six children (42.8%) had only amblyogenic refractive errors, two (14.3%) had a combination of two, one child (7.15%) had a family history for amblyopia, but four children (28.6%) had no amblyopia risk factors but had amblyopia. Conclusion: Amblyogenic risk factors are found higher in patients with CNLDO and patients undergoing NLD irrigation and probing in comparison to normal population. Therefore, we recommend these children to routinely undergo cycloplegic refractions and full ophthalmic examinations.

Keywords: Amblyopia, nasolacrimal duct obstruction, probing


How to cite this article:
Ozgur OR, Sayman IB, Oral Y, Akmaz B. Prevalence of amblyopia in children undergoing nasolacrimal duct irrigation and probing. Indian J Ophthalmol 2013;61:698-700

How to cite this URL:
Ozgur OR, Sayman IB, Oral Y, Akmaz B. Prevalence of amblyopia in children undergoing nasolacrimal duct irrigation and probing. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2013 [cited 2019 Aug 22];61:698-700. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2013/61/12/698/124737

Amblyopia affects approximately 1.6-3.6% of general population. [1] Aside from refractive errors, many risk factors may be ambliogenic. [2] Studies indicated that children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) have a higher prevalence of amblyopia but it is unknown what role, if any, CNLDO has in the visual development of children. The authors of recent studies suggested that children with this condition should undergo a full ophthalmologic examination. [3] The aim of this study is to investigate ambylopia and amblyopia risk factors of children who underwent nasolacrimal duct (NLD) irrigation and probing for CNLDO.


  Materials and Methods Top


The medical records of patients who had undergone NLD irrigation and probing for CNLDO at an age of 3 years or younger were reviewed, and 51 of the patients were recalled between October 1 and December 31, 2011 for a detailed ophthalmic examination to determinate amblyopia or amblyopia risk factors like strabismus, high refractive error, ptosis and any media opacities. Patients had a history of NLD irrigation and probing for CNLDO between January 2005 and September 2008. Informed consent form had been obtained from all parents of the patients who underwent probing and NLD irrigation. One author had performed ophthalmic examination, including cycloplegic refraction, on all children. Amblyopia was accepted as difference in visual acuity of two or more Snellen lines between the two eyes or visual acuity of 20/30 or worse in either eye. Preverbal children were classified as having amblyopia risk factors based on the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus referral criteria. [4] These criteria are shown in [Table 1].
Table 1: Referral criteria for amblyopia risk factors based on the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus

Click here to view



  Results Top


The median age of the 51 patients to whom NLD irrigation and probing were attempted for CNLDO was 23 months (range, 9-36 months). CNLDO affected a total of 70 eyes. CNLDO was present in both eyes in 19 (37%), on the left only in 15 (30%), and on the only right in 17 (33%) patients.

All patients were reviewed for best-corrected visual acuity, refractive errors, and strabismus at a median age of 70.5 months (range 31-95 months). Amblyopia or amblyopia risk factors were identified in 14 patients (27.5%), and the clinical characteristics of these patients are given in [Table 2].
Table 2: Clinical characteristics of 14 patients with amblyopia or amblyogenic risk factors

Click here to view


Two of fourteen patients (14.3%) underwent NLD irrigation and probing for CNLDO on both sides, four (28.6%) on the left and eight (57.1%) on the right. In six (42.85%) patients, amblyopia or amblyopia risk factors were in the same eye, as the eye which underwent probing and NLD irrigation. In six patients (42.85%), there were amblyopia risk factors or amblyopia in both eyes despite one eye of probing; in one patient (7.15%), there was amblyopia risk factor on the contralateral eye of probing; and one patient (7.15%), despite both eyes undergoing probing had amblyopia in only one eye.

Amblyopia risk factors were identified as follows: One child (7.15%) had only strabismus (double elevator palsy), six children (42.8%) had only amblyogenic refractive errors, two (14.3%) had a combination of both, one child (7.15%) had a family history for amblyopia, but four children (28.6%) had no amblyopia risk factors but had amblyopia.

Of the eight children (57.14%) with high refractive error, five had (62.5%) hyperopia, one had (12.5%) significant astigmatism, one had (12.5%) hyperopic astigmatism, and one had (12.5%) anisometropia [Table 3]. No patient had myopia, media opacity, but there was mild ptosis in the patient with double elevator palsy. Seven patients (50%) had a best corrected visual acuity of 20/30 or lower in their amblyopic eye, three patients were not cooperated to measure visual acuity and four had no amblyopia but had amblyopia risk factors [Table 4].
Table 3: Amblyopia or amblyogenic risk factors in 51 children with a history of CNLDO*

Click here to view
Table 4: Refraction and findings of 14 children with amblyopia or amblyogenic risk factors

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Generally, CNLDO is considered to have significantly no adverse association with visual development. [4] More than 90% of children with CNLDO undergo spontaneous resolution by 1 year of age, but those who continue to have symptoms need to go under probing and NLD irrigation. [5]

Amblyopia affects approximately 1.6 - 3.6% of normal population. [1] Besides well-known amblyogenic risk factors, there are a number of risk factors that increase the likelihood that a patient will be amblyopic. These are heredity, low birth weight, mental retardation, craniosynostosis, hydrocephalus, and low socioeconomic factors. [2],[6],[7],[8] Some authors reported a greater than expected rate of amblyopia risk factors among patients with CNLDO. [2],[9],[10],[11]

First, Chalmers and Griffiths reported five cases of anisometropic amblyopia among 130 cases of CNLDO (3.8%), with severe hyperopia occurring in the same eye with epiphora. [12] However, Ellis et al. reported no significant difference between the prevelance of amblyopia or hyperopic anisometropia in children with CNLDO and a control group. [4] The prevalence of anisometropia range between 1.4 and 3.4%, and anisometropic amblyopia between 0.65 and 1.25% in normal population. [13],[14],[15],[16],[17] Piotrowsky et al. reported a 9.8% prevalence rate of anisometropia and a 5.2% prevalence rate of anisometropic amblyopia in children who had CNLDO, a rate that is higher than reported for general population. They also noted that 87.5% of children with hyperopic anisometropia developed amblyopia in the eye with epiphora. Additionally, 90% of the children with hyperopic anisometropia without amblyopia developed more severe hyperopia ipsilateral to their epiphora. They hypothesized that distortion of retinal images from persistent tearing in CNLDO may result with ametropia, and the partial disruption of emmetropization may be the cause of the increased prevalence of hyperopic anisometropia. [11] In our study, hyperopic anisometropia was found only in one child, but hyperopia was found significantly higher (62.5% of amblyogenic refractive errors), which was similar to the study of Matta et al.

Piotrowsky et al. reported a rate of 13.1% amblyogenic risk factors in patients with CNLDO. [11] Matta et al. identified amblyopia risk factors in 88 children (22%) of 402 patients with CNLDO. They reported amblyogenic refractive error in 65 (74%), strabismus in 9 (10%), and a combination of two in 14 (16%). [3] In our study, 27.5% of the children undergoing NLD irrigation and probing had amblyogenic risk factors. Among the patients with amblyogenic risk factors, 42.8% of our patients had only amblyogenic refractive errors, one child (7.15%) had only strabismus, and two (14.3%) had a combination of both. But 28.4% had no amblyogenic risk factors but had amblyopia. Payman et al. reported an amblyogenic risk factor prevalence of 2.1% for hyperopia, 0.1% for myopia, 5.0% for astigmatism, 0.9% for anisometropia, and 1.2% for strabismus in children entering school. They also reported that overall 6.4% were at the risk of amblyopia, and of these 81% had high refractive errors, 11% had strabismus and 8% had both. [15] Similarly, amblyogenic refractive errors are the leading cause of risk in our patients going under NLD irrigation and probing. But amblyogenic risk factors are found much higher than general population.

Both Matta et al. and Piotrowski et al. found a correlation of anisometropia in the eye with NLD obstruction. [2],[11] In our study, 42.85% of our patients had amblyopia or amblyopia risk factors in the same eye which underwent probing and NLD irrigation. In six patients (42.85%), there were amblyopia risk factors in both eyes despite one eye of probing; in one patient (7.15%), there was amblyopia risk factor on the contra lateral eye of probing; and 1 patient (7.15%), despite both eyes undergoing probing, had amblyopia in only one eye.

In conclusion, amblyogenic risk factors are found higher in patients with CNLDO and patients undergoing NLD irrigation and probing in comparison to normal population. Amblyogenic risk factors may be seen in the ipsi or contra lateral eye undergoing probing. Therefore, we recommend infants and children with symptoms of dacryostenosis routinely to undergo cycloplegic refractions and full ophthalmic examinations.

 
  References Top

1.
Simons K. Amblyopia characterization, treatment and prophylaxis. Surv Ophthalmol 2005;50:123-66.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Matta NS, Singman EL, Silbert DI. Prevalence of amblyopia risk factors in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 2010;14:386-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Donahue SP, Arnold RW, Ruben JB, for the AAPOS Vision Screening Committee. Preschool vision screening: What should we be detecting and show we report it? Uniform guidelines for reporting results of preschool vision screening studies. J AAPOS 2003;7:314-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Ellis JD , MacEwen CJ, Young JD. Can congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction interfere with visual development? A cohort case control study. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1998;35:81-5.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Gigantelli JW. The lacrimal drainage system. In: Yanoff M, Duker JS, editors. Ophthalmology. Philadelphia: Mosby; 1999. P 17.3.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Robaei D, Kifley A, Gole GA, Mitchell P. The impact of modest prematurity on visual function at age 6 years: Findings from a population-based study. Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:871-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Tay T, Martin F, Rowe N, Johnson K, Poole M, Tan K, et al. Prevalence and causes of visual impairment in craniosynostotic syndromes. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2006;34:434-40.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Altintas O, Etus V, Etus H, Ceylan S, Caglar S, Caglar Y. Risk of strabismus and amblyopia in children with hydrocephalus. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005;243:1213-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Matte NS, Silbert DI. High prevalence of amblyopia risk factors in preverbal children with nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 2011;15:350-2.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Simon JW, Ngo Y, Ahn E, Khachikian S. Anisometropic amblyopia and nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 2009;46:182-3.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Piotrowski TJ, Diehl NN, Mohney BG. Neonatal dacryostenosis as a risk factor for anisometropia. Arch Ophthalmol 2010;128:1166-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Chalmers R, Griffiths PG. Is congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction a risk factor for the development of amblyopia? Br Orthop J 1996;53:29-30.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Flom MC, Bedell HE. Identifying amblyopia using associated conditions, acuity, and nonacuity features. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1985;62:153-60.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.
Drover JR, Kean PG, Courage ML, Adams RJ. Prevalence of amblyopia and other vision disorders in young Newfoundland and Labrador children. Can J Opthalmol 2008;43:89-94.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Payman J, Akbar F, Hassan H, Masud Y, Alireza J. Refractive errors and amblyopia in children entering school: Shahrood, Iran. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:364-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
William C, Harrad RA, Harvey I, Sparrow JM, Team AS; ALSPAC Study Team. Screening for amblyopia in preschool children: Results of a population based, randomised controlled trial. Ophthalmic epidemiol 2001;8:279-95.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator group. The clinical profile of moderate amblyopia in children younger than 7 years. Arch Opthalmol 2002:120:281-7.  Back to cited text no. 17
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Results
Discussion
Materials and Me...
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1268    
    Printed22    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded1493    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal