ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2009
Efficacy of probing for children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a retrospective study using fluorescein dye disappearance test and lacrimal sac echography.
Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Systemic Inflammation on Recurrence in Patients with Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical outcomes of initial and repeated nasolacrimal duct office-based probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2010Article
- Late probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Journal of ophthalmic & vision research · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate B-scan echography for the assessment of lacrimal sac (LS) in pediatric epiphora secondary to congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO), and to verify its predictive role in functional efficacy of nasolacrimal duct probing. PATIENTS AND
methodsThirty-nine eyes of 23 consecutive children, treated with a single probing for persistent CNLDO-related epiphora, were retrospectively studied. These cases were investigated both collectively and considering two sub-groups: group A (ten patients [20 eyes] <or=13 months) and group B (13 patients [19 eyes] >13 months. Fluorescein dye disappearance test at 10 minutes (FDDT-10) and ultrasound examination of LS were performed before and after probing. An echographic LS scoring system (grade 0 = no LS enlargement; grade 1 = slight longitudinal LS enlargement; grade 2 = longitudinal and slight transverse LS enlargement; grade 3 = marked longitudinal and transverse LS enlargement) was introduced as a predictor of probing efficacy, estimating FDDT-10 modification between pre- and post-operative checks.
resultsEchographic LS evaluation was easily practicable without sedation. In the total cluster and in both age sub-groups, post-probing FDDT-10 decreased with respect to pre-probing value (p < 0.001). Post-probing LS score improved with respect to pre-probing check within the total cluster and group A (p < 0.05). Strong correlation between pre-probing LS alteration and functional probing failure was present in each studied cluster (all p values <0.0001). Within group B, a greater gain of post-probing FDDT-10 was more frequent in patients with a better pre-probing LS score, as well as in younger children (both p values <0.0001).
conclusionsIn children with CNLDO-related epiphora, B-scan echography of the LS can represent a reliable and useful examination for a better understanding of the functional prognosis after probing treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.