Lacrimal Function Tests

Hornblass, Albert; Ingis, Theodore M.

doi:10.1001/archopht.1979.01020020222007

Cited by 32 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…20,25,28 This correlates with dyenegative (absent) primary Jones tests in up to 50% of normal individuals. 29 Chavis et al 25 detected a significant tracer-volume in the sac within 12 s in 98% with a mean transit-time of 3.73 ± 0.51 s. Significant tracer was detected in the NLD within 30 s in 86%. Transit-time to nose was variable with no tracer detected in 32% after 12 min.…”

Section: Ls In Asymptomatic Volunteers and Asymptomatic Fellow Eyescontrasting

confidence: 40%

Lacrimal Scintigraphy: “Interpretation More Art than Science”

Sagili¹,

Selva²,

Malhotra³

2012

Orbit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lacrimal scintigraphy (LS) or dacryoscintigraphy can demonstrate abnormalities in 80%-95% of patients with symptoms of epiphora and a patent lacrimal system on syringing and up to 40% asymptomatic individuals. Precise localization of the site of delay may not always be possible due to lack of anatomic detail on LS. LS is considered useful in patients with epiphora with delayed tear clearance and patency to syringing and suspected to have either nasolacrimal duct (NLD) stenosis or lacrimal pump failure. It remains unclear, however, as to whether LS can reliably distinguish between the two. The literature reports considerable variation in the technique, normative data, analysis, and interpretation of LS. Qualitative or visual analysis is simpler to perform and to our knowledge used more frequently in comparison to quantitative analysis. There is little extra information to be gained from LS in cases with complete NLD obstruction or severe NLD stenosis on syringing.

show abstract

Section: Ls In Asymptomatic Volunteers and Asymptomatic Fellow Eyescontrasting

confidence: 40%

Lacrimal Scintigraphy: “Interpretation More Art than Science”

Sagili¹,

Selva²,

Malhotra³

2012

Orbit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While usually unilateral, CNLDO occurs bilaterally in 20% of cases [8]. The diagnosis of the disorder is confirmed by the fluorescein dye disappearance test, which evaluates the clearance of the dye from the tear meniscus in both eyes over a 5-minute period [10]. However, other causes of epiphora in infants, such as infantile glaucoma and foreign body and corneal infections should be carefully ruled out [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction (CNLDO): A Review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) is a common condition causing excessive tearing or mucoid discharge from the eyes, due to blockage of the nasolacrimal duct system. Nasolacrimal duct obstruction affects as many as 20% children aged <1 year worldwide and is often resolved without surgery. Available treatment options are conservative therapy, including observation, lacrimal sac massage and antibiotics, and invasive therapy. Observation, combined with conservative options, seems to be the best option in infants aged <1 year. Meanwhile, in children aged >1 year, nasolacrimal probing successfully addresses most obstructions. However, the most favorable timing for probing remains controversial. To alleviate persistent epiphora and mucous drainage that is refractory to probing, repeat probing, silicone tube intubation, balloon catheter dilation or dacryocystorhinostomy can be considered as available treatment options. Our review aims to provide an update to CNDO management protocols.

show abstract

“…If an obstructive lesion is identified, it is important to define its site and extent. A number of clinical tests and radiological investigations are available for this purpose but there is no accepted "gold standard" for lacrimal drainage evaluation (Guzek et al, 1997;Hornblass & Ingris, 1979;Zappia & Milder, 1972a,b). The combinations that ophthalmologists use therefore vary considerably (Conway, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 41%