Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 973
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2005  |  Volume : 53  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 144

Probing in children older than 13 months


New Delhi -110 029, India

Correspondence Address:
Neelam Pushker
Room No. 473, 4th Floor, Dr. R. P. Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi -110 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.16185

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Bajaj MS, Pushker N, Chaturvedi A, Chandra M, Mehta M. Probing in children older than 13 months. Indian J Ophthalmol 2005;53:144

How to cite this URL:
Bajaj MS, Pushker N, Chaturvedi A, Chandra M, Mehta M. Probing in children older than 13 months. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2005 [cited 2020 Dec 1];53:144. Available from: https://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2005/53/2/144/16185

Dear Editor,



We read with keen interest the recent article on the outcome of probing in children older than 13 months of age. [1] We fully agree with the contention that probing should be the initial intervention in such cases. Even if the child has had multiple failed probings done elsewhere, it is always worthwhile to give the benefit of at least one probing as it may obviate the need for a relatively major lacrimal drainage procedure. We would like to raise a few pertinent issues which might help in a better understanding of this important clinical entity.



In this series, the oldest child reported is 7 years of age. So in Group 2, the age ranges from 24 months to 7 years. There may have been subtle differences in the results within this rather large class interval. It would have been much more beneficial if the authors would have subdivided this group into smaller subgroups, so as to assess the gradation of the success rate in various age categories of older children.



We would also like to know if any form of rhinological evaluation, such as an endoscopic nasal examination was performed in any of the patients. Data on the anatomical variations at the lower end of the nasolacrimal duct, as well as significant nasal pathologies would be useful in all cases. However, it would assume special significance in patients where probing was not successful, as one could then decide on the further course of management i.e. whether to use an adjunctive procedure with another probing or to go ahead with a dacryocystorhinostomy at the appropriate age.

 
  References Top

1.
Maheshwari R. Results of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children older than 13 months of age. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2005;53(1):49-51.  Back to cited text no. 1
    




 

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

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3167    
    Printed127    
    Emailed8    
    PDF Downloaded216    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal