Estudio comparativo entre sondajes lacrimonasales de primera intención con y sin control endoscópico

Abstract

ObjectiveOur objective was to compare the results of probing with and without endoscopy in cases of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction without prior probing. MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis on 2 non-randomized cohorts, 36 simple soundings (group 1) and 36 soundings with endoscope (group 2), between January 2011 and January 2013. Both groups were similar in age and had no previous surgery. The age of the patients studied ranged between 8 and 27 months in the first group and between 7 and 30 months in the second group. ResultsThe procedure was successful in 50% of the conventional probing group and in 97.22% in the endoscopy probing group. In this group 16.67% of patients with tight inferior turbinate and 11.11% of those where the probe passed into the submucosal space were diagnosed and corrected intraoperatively. Some anomaly was observed in 30.56% of patients undergoing endoscopy. ConclusionAlthough nasal endoscopy is classically reserved for unsuccessful probing, its use in primary intention increases the success rate of the procedure. In our study, 97.22% of eyes had complete resolution of symptoms, avoiding a second surgery and the use of more expensive materials and techniques. Nasal endoscopy helps intraoperative visualisation, understanding and management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and is the only method that confirms the correct anatomic position of the catheterisation in real time.