OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (EDCR) entails creating an opening from the lacrimal sac directly into the nasal cavity to counteract nasolacrimal duct obstruction. We reviewed the literature to determine the effectiveness and the safety of primary EDCR to treat pediatric nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
METHOD: A literature search was conducted by using a number of medical literature data bases for the period from 1995 to 2016. The following search words were used either individually or in combination: epiphora, nasolacrimal duct obstruction, endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, laser-assisted endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, children, congenital, acquired, presaccal obstruction, and postsaccal obstruction. In addition, a few articles were identified based on the experience and information provided by the senior authors (B.A., S.H., D.Y.W.). The search was conducted over a 1-month period (January 2017). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were followed when possible.
RESULTS: Only 10 original clinical research articles were selected based on our objectives and selection criteria. All the studies were at level of evidence III: nonrandomized and noncomparative prospective or retrospective case series. Altogether, 313 patients with ages that ranged from 4 months to 18 years were enrolled. A total of 352 EDCRs were performed that were either single sided (n = 313) or bilateral (n = 39). The most common causes of the obstruction were classified as congenital, followed by idiopathic, and then acquired. A meta-analysis was not performed because of the heterogeneity of the patient groups and variability of the methods used to measure outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Analysis of the results indicated that EDCR was an effective, safe therapeutic approach to treating nasolacrimal duct obstruction in pediatric patients. It should be considered as an alternative procedure to external dacryocystorhinostomy after a failed conservative treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a physiologically compatible pH moisturizer in atopic dermatitis.
METHODS: A randomized half body, double blind, controlled trial involving patients with stable atopic dermatitis was performed. pH-modified moisturizer and standard moisturizer were applied to half body for 6 weeks.
RESULTS: A total of 6 (16.7%) males and 30 (83.3%) females participated. Skin pH reductions from week 0, week 2 and 6 were significant at the forearms (5.315 [0.98] to 4.85 [0.54] to 5.04 [0.78], p=0.02) and abdomen (5.25 [1.01], 4.82 [0.64], 5.01 [0.59], p=0.00) but not at the shins (5.01 [0.80], 4.76 [0.49], 4.85 [0.79], p=0.09) with pH-modified moisturizer. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) at the forearms decreased (4.60 [2.55] to 3.70 [3.10] to 3.00 [3.55], p=0.00), abdomen (3.90 [2.90] to 2.40 [3.45] to 2.70 [2.25], p=0.046). SCORAD improved from 14.1±12.75 to 10.5±13.25 to 7±12.25, p=0.00. In standard moisturizer group, pH reductions were significant at the forearms (5.29 [0.94] to 4.84 [0.55] to 5.02 [0.70], p=0.00) and abdomen (5.25 [1.09], 4.91 [0.63], 5.12 [0.66], p=0.00). TEWL at the forearm were (4.80 [2.95], 4.10 [2.15], 4.60 [3.40], p=0.67), shins (3.80 [1.40], 3.50 [2.35], 4.00 [2.50], p=0.91) and abdomen (3.70 [2.45], 4.10 [3.60], 3.40 [2.95], p=0.80). SCORAD improved from 14.2±9.1 to 10.9±10.65 to 10.5±11, p=0.00. Reduction in pH was observed with both moisturizers while TEWL significantly improved with pH-modified moisturizer. pH-modified moisturizer resulted in greater pH, TEWL and SCORAD improvements however the differences were not significant from standard moisturizer.
STUDY LIMITATION: Skin hydration was not evaluated.
CONCLUSION: Moisturization is beneficial for atopic dermatitis; use of physiologically compatible pH moisturizer is promising.