Top

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology

Published in:

01-11-2014 | Pediatrics

The prevalence of amblyogenic factors in children with persistent congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Authors: Bahram Eshraghi, Mohammad Reza Akbari, Masoud Aghsaei Fard, Azadeh Shahsanaei, Raheleh Assari, Arash Mirmohammadsadeghi

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 11/2014

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the prevalence of amblyopia risk factors in children that underwent probing for persistent congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO).

Methods

The medical records of children with CNLDO (after 1 year of age) that underwent probing were reviewed. Amblyopia risk factors, based on the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus referral criteria in 2013, were sought in the patientsʹ records before probing. The proportion of the patients with anisometropia >1.5 diopters (D) was separately calculated. In unilateral cases of CNLDO, sphere, astigmatism, and spherical equivalent of the eyes with CNLDO were compared with contralateral eyes in order to assess the effect of CNLDO on refractive error. In the follow-up examinations, the success of the probing or the need for additional procedures (Crawford intubation, Monoka intubation, or dacryocystorhinostomy) was evaluated. The prevalence of anisometropia between ‘successful probing’ and ‘failed probing’ groups was compared.

Results

A total of 433 cases were included in the study. 41 cases (9.46 %) had amblyopia risk factors. Twenty-four cases (5.5 %) had anisometropia >1.5 D (spherical or cylindrical). In unilateral cases of CNLDO, the sphere and spherical equivalent of the eyes with CNLDO were significantly greater than those of the contralateral eyes (p < 0.001 for both). Thirty-nine patients (9 %) required other interventions due to failure of probing (failed probing group). There were significantly more anisometropia prevalence in this group, compared with the successful probing group, at the initial examination (p = 0.03).

Conclusions

The findings of greater prevalence of anisometropia >1.5 D (compared with the prevalence in the general population) and significantly greater sphere and spherical equivalents in the eye with CNLDO (compared with contralateral eye) in unilateral cases with CNLDO, suggested some relationships between anisometropia and long-term untreated CNLDO. The finding of more anisometropia in failed probing cases may support the theory of structural abnormality as an explanation for the possible relationship between congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction and anisometropia.

Maheshwari R (2005) Results of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children older than 13 months of age. Indian J Ophthalmol 53:49–51PubMedCrossRef

MacEwen CJ, Young JDH (1991) Epiphora during the first year of life. Eye 5:596–600PubMedCrossRef

Piotrowsky JT, Diehl NN, Mohney BG (2010) Neonatal dacryostenosis as a risk factor for anisometropia. Arch Ophthalmol 128:1166–1169CrossRef

Matta NS, Singman EL, Silbert DI (2010) Prevalence of amblyopia risk factors in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 14:386–388PubMedCrossRef

Matta NS, Silbert DI (2011) High prevalence of amblyopia risk factors in preverbal children with nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 15:350–352PubMedCrossRef

Kipp MA, Kipp MA Jr, Struthers W (2013) Anisometropia and amblyopia in nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 17:235–238PubMedCrossRef

Bagheri A, Safapoor S, Yazdani S, Yaseri M (2012) Refractive state in children with unilateral congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 7:310–315PubMedCentralPubMed

Simon JW, Ngo Y, Ahn E, Khachikian S (2009) Anisometropic amblyopia and nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 46:182–183PubMedCrossRef

Chalmers RJ, Griffiths PG (1996) Is congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction a risk factor for the development of amblyopia? Br Orthopt J 53:29–30

10.

Lacey BA, McGinnity GF, Johnston PB, Archer DB (1995) Congenital epiphora as a potential cause of amblyopia. Vis Res 35:130

11.

Kim JW, Lee H, Chang M, Park M, Lee TS, Baek S (2013) Amblyopia risk factors in infants with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Craniofac Surg 24:1123–1125PubMedCrossRef

12.

Ellis JD, MacEwen CJ, Young JD (1998) Can congenital nasolacrimal-duct obstruction interfere with visual development? A cohort case control study. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 35:81–85PubMed

13.

Donahue SP, Arthur B, Neely DE et al (2013) Guidelines for automated preschool vision screening: a 10-year, evidence-based update. J AAPOS 17:4–8PubMedCrossRef

14.

Donahue SP, Arnold RW, Ruben JB (2003) Preschool vision screening: what should we be detecting and how should we report it? Uniform guidelines for reporting results of preschool vision screening studies. J AAPOS 7:314–316PubMedCrossRef

15.

Thongthong K, Singha P, Liabsuetrakul T (2009) Success of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children under 10 years of age. J Med Assoc Thail 92:1646–1650

16.

Castelo Branco Neto E, Castelo Branco B, Cardoso CC et al (2009) Management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Arg Bras Oftalmol 72:75–78

17.

Donahue SP (2006) Relationship between anisometropia, patient age, and the development of amblyopia. Am J Ophthalmol 142:132–140PubMedCrossRef

18.

Atkinson J, Braddick O (1983) Vision screening and photorefraction—the relation of refractive errors to strabismus and amblyopia. Behav Brain Res 10:71–80PubMedCrossRef

19.

Atkinson J, Braddick O, Durden K et al (1984) Screening for refractive errors in 6–9 month old infants by photorefraction. Br J Ophthalmol 68:105–112PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

20.

Weale RA (2002) On the age-related prevalence of anisometropia. Ophthalmic Res 34:389–392PubMedCrossRef

21.

Bourne RR, Dineen BP, Ali SM et al (2004) Prevalence of refractive error in Bangladeshi adults: results of the National Blindness and Low Vision Survey of Bangladesh. Ophthalmology 111:1150–1160PubMedCrossRef

22.

Quek TP, Chua CG, Chong CS et al (2004) Prevalence of refractive errors in teenage high school students in Singapore. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 24:47–55PubMedCrossRef

23.

Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (2002) Spontaneous resolution of early-onset esotropia: experience of the Congenital Esotropia Observational Study. Am J Ophthalmol 133:109–118CrossRef

Title: The prevalence of amblyogenic factors in children with persistent congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction
Authors: Bahram Eshraghi
Mohammad Reza Akbari
Masoud Aghsaei Fard
Azadeh Shahsanaei
Raheleh Assari
Arash Mirmohammadsadeghi
Publication date: 01-11-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 11/2014
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-014-2643-1

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

The prevalence of amblyogenic factors in children with persistent congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2014

Hyperthermia-induced upregulation of vascular endothelial growth factor in retinal pigment epithelial cells is regulated by mitogen-activated protein kinases

Next generation sequencing uncovers a missense mutation in COL4A1 as the cause of familial retinal arteriolar tortuosity

Early axonal damage detection by ganglion cell complex analysis with optical coherence tomography in nonarteritic anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy

The effect of cataract surgery on blue–yellow and standard-pattern visual-evoked potentials

Effect of age and other factors on macular pigment optical density measured with resonance Raman spectroscopy

Evaluation of congenital excavated optic disc anomalies with spectral-domain and swept-source optical coherence tomography