Observational studyInternational ophthalmology2025
Pain management in lacrimal lavage: insights from a comparative study.
Observational study in International ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe lacrimal lavage test commonly assesses lacrimal obstruction but can cause discomfort. This study compares pain scores during lacrimal lavage for the first and second eye, examines differences between eyes with and without nasolacrimal duct obstruction, and evaluates lidocaine versus saline for pain relief. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional observational study was conducted at the Ophthalmology Department of a University Hospital from October to November 2024 and included 252 eyes from 126 patients with epiphora who underwent nasolacrimal lavage. Lacrimal irrigation was performed using a 23-G blunt cannula with saline on one side and lidocaine on the other. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).
resultsThere was no significant difference (p = 0.26) in VAS scores between the saline and lidocaine irrigation sides. However, the VAS score for the lavage performed on the first side was significantly higher (p = 0.047) than the second side. Additionally, female patients reported significantly higher VAS scores compared to male patients (p = 0.001). In patients with dacryostenosis, the VAS score on the side with nasolacrimal duct obstruction was significantly higher (p = 0.008) compared to the side without NLDO.
conclusionThis study shows that lacrimal lavage is a painful procedure for assessing the nasolacrimal duct. Lidocaine was ineffective in reducing pain, with most discomfort caused by fluid pressure. Higher pain scores were observed in obstructed ducts and during the first procedure, likely due to anxiety. Women reported greater pain than men, underscoring the need to address gender differences in pain management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40186060What 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.