ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Outcomes of Primary Probing Versus Lacrimal Sac Massage in Older Infants With Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) is one of the most common causes of persistent epiphora and discharge in infants. While lacrimal sac massage is frequently advised as an initial therapy, the role of early probing in infants older than six months remains a subject of discussion. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of primary probing and lacrimal sac massage in infants aged 6-12 months with CNLDO. Methods A prospective interventional study (non-randomized controlled trial) was conducted over a one-year period involving infants aged 6 to 12 months diagnosed with CNLDO. Participants were assigned to two groups: Group 1 underwent primary probing, while Group 2 was instructed to perform lacrimal sac massage for three months. Treatment success was defined as the absence of clinical signs of CNLDO, namely watering, increased tear lake, and mucoid discharge. Analysis of data was performed using IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Results A total of 128 infants were included; 48 children with CNLDO underwent primary probing, and 80 were treated with lacrimal sac massage. Probing achieved a significantly higher success rate (83.33%) compared to massage (25%). A chi-square test comparing the difference in success rates was highly statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Identified contributors to massage failure included poor compliance, improper technique, and recurrent upper respiratory infections. Conclusion Based on the significantly superior success rates and favorable compliance observed in our patient cohort, our findings suggest that early referral to an ophthalmologist and a decision for primary probing may represent a more efficacious initial treatment strategy than prolonged massage in this specific age group. Further larger-scale, multi-center trials are warranted to confirm these findings and provide a comprehensive assessment of long-term complication rates for both modalities.
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.