ArticleHNO2019
[Low-dose helical CT-dacryocystography in nasolacrimal duct obstruction-a prospective study].
Article in HNO, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting the need for concomitant endoscopic septoplasty during endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Congenital lacrimal fistulas with secondary infection mimicking acute dacryocystitis: a case report and literature review.International journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
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
backgroundIn addition to basic ophthalmologic diagnostic workup, different radiologic procedures can be performed for assessment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. However, no gold standard imaging technique has yet been established. Using the results of the present study, the advantages of helical CT-dacryocystography (CT-DCG) are demonstrated, particularly when performed before endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn 21 patients with uni- or bilateral epiphora, 24 low-dose helical CT-DCGs were performed with non-ionic iodine-containing contrast medium and including three-dimensional reconstruction. For 8 patients, digital subtraction angiography (DSA)-DCG results were available for comparison with CT-DCG.
resultsUsing low-dose helical CT-DCG, either the location of nasolacrimal duct pathology could be exactly identified (n = 19; stenosis presaccal n = 3, intrasaccal n = 11, postsaccal n = 5) or nasolacrimal system block could be definitively excluded as the cause of epiphora (n = 5). For imaging of the perilacrimal and periorbital bony structures, CT-DCG is significantly better than DSA-DCG.
conclusionLow-dose helical CT-DCG with reconstruction of the coronal and sagittal planes represents an ideal imaging technique with low exposure for detection of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. By demonstrating all relevant anatomic landmarks for endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, helical CT-DCG enables head and neck surgeons to plan surgery optimally.
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.