Nasolacrimal probing vs endoscopic assisted nasolacrimal probing with inferior turbinate medialization in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes and success rates of nasolacrimal probing alone compared with endoscopic assisted nasolacrimal probing with inferior turbinate medialization in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
Patients and methods: This prospective comparative nonrandomized interventional study included 74 eyes of 59 patients (15 were bilateral and 44 were unilateral) with epiphora due to congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. 35 eyes were treated by nasolacrimal probing alone (group1) and 39 eyes were treated by endoscopic assisted nasolacrimal probing with inferior turbinate medialization (group2). They were admitted to the ophthalmology department at Al Azhar University Hospital Damietta branch during the period from March 2019 to September 2021. Ophthalmic examination using a slit lamp to examine lid position, exclude punctal elements, lid malposition, and anterior segment causes of a watery eye.
Results: There were insignificant differences between both groups as regard age, gender, and laterality of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. As regards the success of the procedure, the success rate was 91.4% in group 1 and 89.7% in group 2 with no significant difference between both groups (P-value = 0.80). As regards factors affecting the success of the procedure, success rates were higher in younger patients in both groups (P-value <0.001).
Conclusion: There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the success of the procedure. But the success was higher in younger patients in both groups so early probing is recommended in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction whatever the procedure.