Is it necessary to accompany probing with endoscopy in cases of congenital nasolacrimal canal obstruction?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorCakmak, Sevin Soker
dc.contributor.authorYildirim, Muzeyyen
dc.contributor.authorSakalar, Yildirim Bayezit
dc.contributor.authorKeklikci, Ugur
dc.contributor.authorAlakus, Fuat
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T16:14:54Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T16:14:54Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractObjective To compare the results of probing with and without endoscopy in cases of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction who had previously not undergone probing Methods Fifty-one children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction who underwent surgical intervention between June 2007 and April 2009 in our hospital were included in the study Patients who had had previous probings were excluded from the study. Conventional probing was performed in 37 eyes of 25 patients, and probing with intranasal endoscopic visualization in 36 eyes of 26 patients. Diagnosis was based on history of epiphora since birth or shortly after, and fluorescein dye disappearance test. Results Thirty-two of 37 eyes (86.48%) were cured by probing Of the 5 cases with complaints. I had lacrimal sac fistula. Thirty-four of 36 eyes (94.44%) were cured by probing guided by endoscope observation. Thirty-two cases had stenosis at the lower end of the nasolacrimal duct which required probing. In two cases the probe passed submucosally to the floor of the nose In two cases a false passage was made at the upper end of the inferior meatus In these cases, the operation was continued by repeating the process until the distal end of the nasolacrimal canal was seen to have been passed Conclusion Probing with endoscopy may be excessive in primary cases but in cases which have undergone unsuccessful probing, it is useful for visualization of anomalies in the lower nasolacrimal canal and to obtain the correct anatomic position for the probe (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.05.028
dc.identifier.endpage1015en_US
dc.identifier.issn0165-5876
dc.identifier.issn1872-8464
dc.identifier.issue9en_US
dc.identifier.pmid20708130
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-77955556269
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage1013en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.05.028
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/15508
dc.identifier.volume74en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000281615300009
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Ireland Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectPaediatricen_US
dc.subjectNasolacrimal Duct Obstructionen_US
dc.subjectEndoscopicen_US
dc.titleIs it necessary to accompany probing with endoscopy in cases of congenital nasolacrimal canal obstruction?en_US
dc.titleIs it necessary to accompany probing with endoscopy in cases of congenital nasolacrimal canal obstruction?
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu