Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To review the role of nasolacrimal intubation and dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) in functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction (FNLDO).</p> Methods <p>A systematic search was conducted from inception to the 31st March 2025 on PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases. All studies describing a clinical diagnosis of “functional” obstruction was included. These included studies referencing historical variations of the term “functional block”, “partial obstruction” and its associated clinical tests, such as patent syringing and/or positive Jones I and /or I testing”, and/or adjunctive imaging including dacryocystogram (DCG) and/or dacryoscintigraphy (DSG). Studies depicting patients &lt; 18&#xa0;years-old, “complete” acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction, clear evidence of NLDS; and ongoing epiphora despite prior DCR and anatomical patency were excluded.</p> Results <p>The search yielded 19 studies including 15 retrospective and 4 prospective studies. In 5 studies, patients were clearly defined as FNLDO with patent lacrimal syringing and/or Jones testing, DCG excluding nasolacrimal stenosis, and, if available, DSG to characterise the location of drainage delay. The remaining studies included terms such as “functional block” or “functional epiphora” defined as nasolacrimal duct patency via syringing only; and patent syringing and delayed DSG, without DCG excluding nasolacrimal duct stenosis (NLDS). Two studies were retrospective comparative studies between nasolacrimal intubation and DCR. Complete resolution for endoscopic DCR ranged from 64.7–97.2%, external DCR ranged from 53.8–94.1%; and nasolacrimal intubation ranged from 34.1–76%.</p> Conclusion <p>Characterising the nature and extent of impaired nasolacrimal tear drainage is imperative in determining the most appropriate intervention. In FNLDO, DCR appears to have higher success rates than nasolacrimal intubation. Intubation represents a less invasive option for patients. Ultimately, determining appropriate management requires patient education and informed consent regarding the available options, efficacy, risks and clinical outcomes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The role of intubation and dacryocystorhinostomy in the management of functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a systematic review

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月2日

查看全文
  • Terence Ang,
  • Veda Muthineni,
  • Abdullah Almater,
  • Dinesh Selva

摘要

Purpose

To review the role of nasolacrimal intubation and dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) in functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction (FNLDO).

Methods

A systematic search was conducted from inception to the 31st March 2025 on PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases. All studies describing a clinical diagnosis of “functional” obstruction was included. These included studies referencing historical variations of the term “functional block”, “partial obstruction” and its associated clinical tests, such as patent syringing and/or positive Jones I and /or I testing”, and/or adjunctive imaging including dacryocystogram (DCG) and/or dacryoscintigraphy (DSG). Studies depicting patients < 18 years-old, “complete” acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction, clear evidence of NLDS; and ongoing epiphora despite prior DCR and anatomical patency were excluded.

Results

The search yielded 19 studies including 15 retrospective and 4 prospective studies. In 5 studies, patients were clearly defined as FNLDO with patent lacrimal syringing and/or Jones testing, DCG excluding nasolacrimal stenosis, and, if available, DSG to characterise the location of drainage delay. The remaining studies included terms such as “functional block” or “functional epiphora” defined as nasolacrimal duct patency via syringing only; and patent syringing and delayed DSG, without DCG excluding nasolacrimal duct stenosis (NLDS). Two studies were retrospective comparative studies between nasolacrimal intubation and DCR. Complete resolution for endoscopic DCR ranged from 64.7–97.2%, external DCR ranged from 53.8–94.1%; and nasolacrimal intubation ranged from 34.1–76%.

Conclusion

Characterising the nature and extent of impaired nasolacrimal tear drainage is imperative in determining the most appropriate intervention. In FNLDO, DCR appears to have higher success rates than nasolacrimal intubation. Intubation represents a less invasive option for patients. Ultimately, determining appropriate management requires patient education and informed consent regarding the available options, efficacy, risks and clinical outcomes.