To determine the success rate of initial probing in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction at different ages, using nasal endoscopy.

Fifty eyes of 38 consecutive children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction underwent endoscopic nasolacrimal duct probing under general anaesthesia. Patients were followed up for at least three months. Probing success was defined as complete remission of symptoms and a normal fluorescein dye disappearance test result.

The age range of patients was 17–109 months. The success rates of probing were: 100 per cent (29 out of 29) for cases of stenosis at the lower nasolacrimal duct, 100 per cent (7 out of 7) for functional epiphora cases and 92.86 per cent (13 out of 14) for nasolacrimal atresia cases. Overall, there was only one child for whom the probing treatment for nasolacrimal duct obstruction was not successful; this child had Down's syndrome and a more complex developmental abnormality of the nasolacrimal duct. Age and site of obstruction were not found to significantly affect the outcome of probing.

Probing of the nasolacrimal system using an endoscopic approach allows direct visualisation of the nasolacrimal duct. This can facilitate diagnosis of the anomaly and significantly increase the procedure success rate.

The authors discuss a case of conjunctival irritation and epiphora in a patient who had undergone dacryocystorhinostomy three years earlier.

Case report, and a review of the world literature concerning lacrimal canalicular air regurgitation after dacryocystorhinostomy.

A 70-year-old woman, who used continuous positive airway pressure therapy during sleep, complained of epiphora and conjunctival irritation. She had undergone dacryocystorhinostomy three years earlier. Her right eye had an augmented tear meniscus, with a predominantly medial conjunctival irritation. Conjunctival irritation from lacrimal canalicular air regurgitation was diagnosed. White petrolatum and mineral oil ophthalmic ointment was prescribed, applied topically before sleeping. After one month of treatment, complete relief of symptoms was obtained.

There is little current information on managing such patients. It is imperative to discuss this potential complication when considering nasolacrimal surgery in patients using continuous positive airway pressure therapy.

Most patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction have dry, crusty nasal mucosa. Mucociliary clearance is modulated by the amount and biochemical composition of nasal mucus. Nasolacrimal duct obstruction disturbs the drainage of tears into the nasal cavity.

We examined the effect of nasolacrimal duct obstruction on the mucociliary transport of nasal mucosa, by comparing saccharine test results for epiphora patients versus healthy volunteers.

Prospective, randomised, clinical trial.

Eight patients with bilateral epiphora and 10 patients with unilateral epiphora were included in the study group. Complete nasolacrimal duct obstruction was demonstrated by studying irrigation of the nasolacrimal system, and by fluorescein dye study. The control group comprised 20 healthy volunteers. Mucociliary transport was assessed by the saccharine test in both the study and control groups. The saccharine transit times of 26 impaired nasal cavities were compared with those of 20 healthy nasal cavities of controls. Also, the saccharine transit times of the healthy nasal cavities of the 10 patients with unilateral epiphora were compared with those of their diseased sides, and also with those of healthy volunteers.

The saccharine transit times of the epiphora patients were statistically significantly greater than those of the control group. Also, there was a statistically significant difference in saccharine transit times, comparing the healthy and impaired nasal cavities of patients with unilateral epiphora.

Nasolacrimal duct obstruction has a negative effect on nasal mucociliary clearance. This may be related to changes in the amount and biochemical composition of nasal mucus.

Dacryocystorhinostomy via an endonasal route has been adopted in our department. This audit study describes and compares our results for external, laser endonasal and ‘cold steel’ endonasal techniques. Success was defined as a subjective report of eye watering being ‘better’ or ‘cured’. Data were obtained from a retrospective review of the medical records of all patients undergoing primary dacryocystorhinostomy in our department.

External dacryocystorhinostomy performed by a consultant ophthalmologist was taken as our gold standard. In our study, the success rate for external dacryocystorhinostomy was 94 per cent.

Our initial results for endonasal laser-assisted dacryocystorhinostomy produced a success rate of 64 per cent, which was significantly worse than that for external dacryocystorhinostomy. These results have been previously published.

Evidence suggested that cold steel endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy was more effective, and we adopted this as our technique of choice.

Over a four-year period, 57 cases completed a full nine months' follow up. 93 per cent were completed as day cases and 39 per cent were performed under local anaesthetic. The success rate was 79 per cent (45/57). There was no difference in success rates when this procedure was compared with external dacryocystorhinostomy (p = 0.55). The type of anaesthetic used (i.e. local vs general) made no difference to the success rate (p = 0.93).

Cold steel endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy was as effective as the gold standard, i.e. external dacryocystorhinostomy. Laser-assisted dacryocystorhinostomy was significantly less successful than external dacryocystorhinostomy. Due to the benefits of decreased operating time, lower morbidity and success under local anaesthetic, we recommend cold steel endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy as our procedure of choice for the treatment of epiphora.