ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Bony nasolacrimal canal morphometry and sinonasal anatomy in primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a retrospective comparative computed tomography study.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare bony nasolacrimal canal (BNLC) morphometry and adjacent sinonasal measurements between patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO) and healthy controls, and to determine whether these anatomical characteristics are associated with PANDO.
methodsIn this retrospective, cross-sectional study, computed tomography (CT) images from 86 PANDO patients and 88 healthy controls (n = 174) were analysed. Nine parameters were measured using a standardised protocol: proximal area, distal area, BNLC centre-nasal base angle, canal length, BNLC long axis-midline angle, inferior meatus width, inferior turbinate thickness, nasal width, and nasal height. In patients with unilateral PANDO, the affected and unaffected canals were additionally compared with paired tests. Group differences were assessed with independent-samples t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests, two-way ANOVA (PANDO status × sex), binary logistic regression, and ROC curve analysis. The Benjamini-Hochberg procedure controlled the false discovery rate across the nine morphometric comparisons.
resultsPANDO patients were older than controls (42.26 ± 15.46 vs. 31.18 ± 9.84 years; p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 0.857). Canal length (16.55 ± 3.78 vs. 17.91 ± 3.50 mm) and the BNLC long axis-midline angle (7.96 ± 4.32° vs. 9.48 ± 4.17°) were both lower in PANDO patients on univariate testing (raw p = 0.021 and p = 0.007), but neither difference remained significant after Benjamini-Hochberg correction (q = 0.095 and q = 0.063). No other morphometric parameter differed between groups. In logistic regression, age (OR = 1.074; 95% CI: 1.043-1.107) and a smaller BNLC long axis-midline angle (OR = 0.894; 95% CI: 0.824-0.971) were independently associated with PANDO (Nagelkerke R
conclusionA smaller BNLC long axis-midline angle and older age were associated with PANDO status in this cohort, but the angular finding did not survive multiplicity correction and fell below the threshold of reliably detectable change. These results are hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory. Prospective, multicentre studies with three-dimensional imaging and pre-registered analysis plans are needed to establish whether canal orientation contributes to PANDO pathogenesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42667466What 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.