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: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic characteristics of inferior turbinate tissue biopsy sIgE in asymptomatic and rhinitic patients.
METHODS: A diagnostic cross-sectional study was undertaken, involving patients who underwent inferior turbinate surgery with or without other surgical interventions. Inferior turbinate tissue biopsy was performed during surgery and was assessed for allergen sIgE (dust mite, grass [temperate or subtropical], and animal epithelium) using an automated immunoassay. Tissue sIgE was assessed among asymptomatic patients and those with nasal symptoms. Data were presented as median (interquartile range). A receiver operating curve was used to predict the diagnostic utility of turbinate tissue sIgE in determining allergic rhinitis.
RESULTS: A total of 160 patients (41.89 ± 14.65 years, 36.9% females) were included. The median tissue sIgE concentration among the asymptomatic nonatopic group of patients was 0.09 (0.08-0.10) kUA/L and tissue sIgE > 0.10 kUA/L was determined as a positive threshold. Inferior turbinate tissue sIgE was shown to be a predictive test for allergic rhinitis (area under curve: 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.90) with 90% sensitivity and 89% negative predictive value.
CONCLUSION: Inferior turbinate tissue biopsy sIgE is a sensitive tool to predict allergic rhinitis. The threshold value of 0.1 kUA/L corresponded well with the asymptomatic nonatopic group of patients. This method detects sIgE in the nasal mucosa and may be a useful test for allergic rhinitis in future research.