Efficacy and Safety of Inhalation Sedation during Office Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Subjects and Study Design
2.2. Probing Procedures
2.3. Follow-Up and Postoperative Evaluation
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Paul, T.O.; Shepherd, R. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: Natural history and the timing of optimal intervention. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 1994, 31, 362–367. [Google Scholar]
- Petersen, R.A.; Robb, R.M. The natural course of congenital obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 1978, 15, 246–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.A.; Chandler, D.L.; Repka, M.X.; Melia, M.; Beck, R.W.; Summers, C.G.; Frick, K.D.; Foster, N.C.; Kraker, R.T.; Atkinson, S. A comparison of treatment approaches for bilateral congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2013, 156, 1045–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Repka, M.X.; Chandler, D.L.; Beck, R.W.; Crouch, E.R., III; Donahue, S.; Holmes, J.M.; Lee, K.; Melia, M.; Quinn, G.E.; Sala, N.A.; et al. Primary treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction with probing in children younger than 4 years. Ophthalmology 2008, 115, 577–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, A.M.; Chandler, D.L.; Repka, M.X.; Hoover, D.L.; Lee, K.A.; Melia, M.; Rychwalski, P.J.; Silbert, D.I.; Beck, R.W.; Crouch, E.R., III; et al. Office probing for treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction in infants. J. Am. Assoc. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 2014, 18, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brenner, M. Child Restraint in the Acute Setting of Pediatric Nursing: An Extraordinarily Stressful Event. Issues Compr. Pediatr. Nurs. 2007, 30, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavuoto, K.M.; Rodriguez, L.I.; Tutiven, J.; Chang, T.C. General anesthesia in the pediatric population. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2014, 25, 411–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Movaghar, M.; Kodsi, S.; Merola, C.; Doyle, J. Probing for nasolacrimal duct obstruction with intravenous propofol sedation. J. Am. Assoc. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 2000, 4, 179–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montes, R.G.; Bohn, R.A. Deep sedation with inhaled sevoflurane for pediatric outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2000, 31, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Naito, Y.; Tamai, S.; Shingu, K.; Fujimori, R.; Mori, K. Comparison between sevoflurane and halothane for paediatric ambulatory anaesthesia. Br. J. Anaesth. 1991, 67, 387–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robb, R.M. Probing and irrigation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1986, 104, 378–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arora, S.; Koushan, K.; Harvey, J.T. Success rates of primary probing for congenital nasolacrimal obstruction in children. J. Am. Assoc. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 2012, 16, 173–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, R.A. Dilation probing as primary treatment for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J. Am. Assoc. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 2002, 6, 364–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bhinder, G.S. Repeated probing results in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 2004, 14, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stager, D.; Baker, J.D.; Frey, T.; Weakley, D.R., Jr.; Birch, E.E. Office probing of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmic Surg. 1992, 23, 482–484. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Perveen, S.; Sufi, A.R.; Rashid, S.; Khan, A. Success rate of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction at various ages. J. Ophthalmic Vis. Res. 2014, 9, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Pollard, Z.F. Tear duct obstruction in children. Clin. Pediatr. 1979, 18, 487–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Behne, M.; Wilke, H.-J.; Harder, S. Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Sevoflurane. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 1999, 36, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goa, K.L.; Noble, S.; Spencer, C.M. Sevoflurane in paediatric anaesthesia: A review. Pediatr. Drugs 1999, 1, 127–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brioni, J.D.; Varughese, S.; Ahmed, R.; Bein, B. A clinical review of inhalation anesthesia with sevoflurane: From early research to emerging topics. J. Anesth. 2017, 31, 764–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sato, Y.; Oshiro, M.; Takemoto, K.; Hosono, H.; Saito, A.; Kondo, T.; Aizu, K.; Matsusawa, M.; Futamura, Y.; Asami, T.; et al. Multicenter observational study comparing sedation/analgesia protocols for laser photocoagulation treatment of retinopathy of prematurity. J. Perinatol. 2015, 35, 965–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goldblum, T.A.; Summers, C.G.; Egbert, J.E.; Letson, R.D. Office probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: A study of parental satisfaction. J. Pediatr. Ophthalmol. Strabismus 1996, 33, 244–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Group | |||
---|---|---|---|
Characteristics | Sedation | Restraint | p Value |
No. patients (no. eyes) | 70 (81) | 110 (121) | |
Age, months | 16.9 ± 8.5 | 13.6 ± 6.7 | 0.004 |
≥12 months, n (%) | 51 (72.9) | 58 (52.7) | 0.007 |
Male, n (%) | 44 (62.9) | 55 (50.0) | 0.091 |
Bilateral, n (%) | 11 (15.7) | 11 (10.0) | 0.254 |
Dacryocystitis, eyes (%) | 3 (3.7) | 9 (7.4) | 0.271 |
Previous treatment, eyes (%) | 0.325 | ||
Lacrimal massage and topical antibiotics | 49 (60.5) | 70 (57.9) | |
Topical antibiotics only | 11 (13.6) | 12 (9.9) | |
Lacrimal massage only | 0 (0) | 2 (1.7) | |
None | 21 (25.9) | 37 (30.6) | |
Follow-up, months | 9.8 ± 4.9 | 13.7 ± 12.8 | 0.001 |
Success rates, eyes (%) | 76/81 (93.8) | 103/121 (85.1) | 0.056 |
Age | Success Rate, n (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Total (n, 202 Eyes) | Sedation (n, 81 Eyes) | Restraint (n, 121 Eyes) | p Value | |
<12 months | 74/80 (92.5) | 20/22 (90.9) | 54/58 (93.1) | 0.739 |
≥12 months | 105/122 (86.1) | 56/59 (94.9) | 49/63 (77.8) | 0.006 |
<18 months | 138/156 (88.5) | 51/54 (94.4) | 87/102 (85.3) | 0.089 |
≥18 months | 41/46 (89.1) | 25/27 (92.6) | 16/19 (84.2) | 0.368 |
<24 months | 156/175 (89.1) | 62/66 (93.9) | 94/109 (86.2) | 0.112 |
≥24 months | 23/27 (85.2) | 14/15 (93.3) | 9/12 (75.0) | 0.183 |
Total | 179/202 (88.6) | 76/81 (93.8) | 103/121 (85.1) | 0.056 |
Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Crude OR (95% CI) | p Value | aOR (95% CI) | p Value | aOR (95% CI) | p Value | |
Total (Number of Eyes = 202) | Model 1 | Model 2 | ||||
Inhalation sedation | 2.66 (0.94–7.47) | 0.064 | 3.01 (1.03–8.74) | 0.043 | 2.88 (0.96–8.63) | 0.058 |
Age ≥12 months | 0.51 (0.19–1.36) | 0.180 | 0.42 (0.15–1.14) | 0.090 | 0.36 (0.12–1.03) | 0.058 |
Sex, female | 0.68 (0.28–1.61) | 0.378 | 0.79 (0.32–1.95) | 0.614 | 0.91 (0.35–2.35) | 0.842 |
Bilateral | 1.37 (0.44–4.25) | 0.589 | 0.98 (0.29–3.32) | 0.973 | ||
Lacrimal massage and topical antibiotics (vs. none) | 2.55 (1.01–6.42) | 0.047 | 2.41 (0.91–6.37) | 0.075 | ||
Dacryocystitis | 0.35 (0.09–1.41) | 0.141 | 0.29 (0.06–1.36) | 0.117 | ||
Age <12 months (number of eyes = 79) | ||||||
Inhalation anesthesia | 0.75 (0.13–4.45) | 0.756 | 0.10 (0.01–1.49) | 0.094 | 0.12 (0.01–1.77) | 0.122 |
Months (per 1-month increase) | 2.04 (1.22–3.41) | 0.007 | 3.34 (1.44–7.71) | 0.005 | 2.92 (1.18–7.24) | 0.020 |
Sex, female | 0.78 (0.15–4.13) | 0.771 | 0.23 (0.02–2.18) | 0.202 | 0.24 (0.02–2.75) | 0.253 |
Bilateral | NA | NA | NA | NA | ||
Lacrimal massage and topical antibiotics (vs. none) | 4.50 (0.76–26.6) | 0.097 | 2.81 (0.30–26.20) | 0.364 | ||
Dacryocystitis | 0.53 (0.05–5.21) | 0.586 | 2.57 (0.09–75.19) | 0.583 | ||
Age ≥12 months (number of eyes = 123) | ||||||
Inhalation anesthesia | 5.23 (1.42–19.25) | 0.013 | 4.89 (1.29–18.57) | 0.020 | 5.56 (1.33–23.13) | 0.018 |
Months (per 1-month increase) | 1.02 (0.95–1.10) | 0.503 | 1.02 (0.94–1.09) | 0.680 | 1.02 (0.94–1.10) | 0.683 |
Sex, female | 0.63 (0.23–1.76) | 0.380 | 0.84 (0.28–2.51) | 0.756 | 1.00 (0.30–3.36) | 1.000 |
Bilateral | 0.95 (0.28–3.19) | 0.935 | 0.61 (0.15–2.42) | 0.482 | ||
Lacrimal massage and topical antibiotics (vs. none) | 2.07 (0.68–6.29) | 0.198 | 2.02 (0.58–6.99) | 0.268 | ||
Dacryocystitis | 0.14 (0.02–1.10) | 0.062 | 0.09 (0.01–1.04) | 0.054 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, C.; Jeong, S.-M.; Kim, G.J.; Joo, E.-Y.; Song, M.H.; Sa, H.-S. Efficacy and Safety of Inhalation Sedation during Office Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10081800
Lee C, Jeong S-M, Kim GJ, Joo E-Y, Song MH, Sa H-S. Efficacy and Safety of Inhalation Sedation during Office Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(8):1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10081800
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Chunghyun, Su-Min Jeong, Gye Jung Kim, Eun-Young Joo, Myung Hee Song, and Ho-Seok Sa. 2021. "Efficacy and Safety of Inhalation Sedation during Office Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 8: 1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10081800