ArticleBMC ophthalmology2020
Success rates of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction at various ages.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Success Rate of the Primary Probing in Pediatric Patients with Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Different Age Groups.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Standardized Lacrimal Sac Massage vs Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Infants: A Noninferiority Randomized Trial.JAMA ophthalmology · 2026Trial
- Comparative efficacy of probing with or without intubation, and/or inferior turbinate fracture in simple congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Surgical outcomes and the role of probe exit site in nasal endoscopy-guided interventions for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a cross-sectional study.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Anatomic features of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a comparative computed tomography study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction: Natural Course, Diagnosis and Therapeutic Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating a Decade of Surgical Solutions: Pediatric Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction Treatment Outcomes in Malaysia.Cureus · 2024Article
- Probing and nasolacrimal intubation outcomes in children over 18 Months of age with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Comparison of Outcomes of Silicone Tube Intubation with or without Dacryoendoscopy for the Treatment of Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Effect of age on primary balloon dacryocystoplasty and probing success in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.International ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Bacterial Culture of Tear Duct Infections Secondary to Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstructions.Journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Age-Specific Outcomes of Conservative Approach and Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Dacryoendoscopy-assisted incision of Hasner's valve under nasoendoscopy for membranous congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction after probing failure: a retrospective study.BMC ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Outcome of monocanalicular intubation for complex congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: the role of age.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyArticle
- Endoscopic-guided monocanalicular versus bicanalicular Ritleng intubation for treating congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in patients aged 24-53 months.Oman journal of ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough nasolacrimal duct probing is the standard treatment for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) among children, the optimal timing of this procedure has been a topic of debate. The aim of the study was to analyze the clinical efficacy of nasolacrimal duct probing among patients with CNLDO symptoms at various ages.
methodsAn 8-year retrospective study involved 2434 patients (3009 eyes), who underwent nasolacrimal duct probing conducted under topical anesthesia in the operating theatre. The study group consisted of 1148 girls (47.2%) and 1286 boys (52.8%) from 2 weeks to 41 months (average age was 8 ± 5.6 months). The participants were divided into nine age groups: 0-2 months, 3-6 months, 7-9 months, 10-12 months, 13-15 months, 16-18 months, 19-21 months, 22-24 months and over 24 months.
resultsBilateral obstruction was present among 575 (23.6%) children and was associated with a higher percentage of unsuccessful procedures compared to patients with unilateral obstruction (16.9% vs 10.2%, p < 0.001 Chi-square test). The success rate of the initial probing was 87.2% for all children and it was shown that it decreased with age. In the above age groups, it was 87.9%; 91.4%; 89.6%; 86%; 76.3%; 71.3%; 70.3%; 70.2%; 65.4%, respectively.
conclusionsProbing is a safe and effective procedure. However, age at the time of the initial intervention and bilateral surgery constitute significant risk factors for failed probing. Probing between 7 and 9 months appears to be reasonable treatment strategy for children without recurrent infections. Early surgical intervention may be considered for patients with additional signs.
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.