search for


Clinical Efficacy of Lacrimal Endoscopy in Patients with Epiphora
눈물흘림 환자에서 누도미세내시경의 임상적 유용성
JKOS 2017 May;58(5):495-502
Published online May 15, 2017
Copyright © 2017 The Korean Ophthalmological Society.
PDF Download Count: 476 / View Count: 313

Sung Woong Lim, MD, Young Je Sung, MD, Helen Lew, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea
차의과학대학교 분당차병원 안과학교실
Received February 16, 2017; Revised March 15, 2017; Accepted April 21, 2017.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Purpose: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of lacrimal endoscopy in patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) and to compare the dacryocystography (DCG) and lacrimal endoscopic findings between patients with epiphora.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 31 eyes of 23 patients who underwent an irrigation test, DCG, and lacrimal endoscopy from December 2014 to February 2016. We compared the clinical characteristics, and dacryocystographic findings, and lacrimal endoscopic findings of the patients, and analyzed whether or not these findings agree.
Results: Thirty-one eyes showed complete obstruction (13 eyes, 41.9%), partial obstruction (7 eyes, 22.6%), or patency (11 eyes, 35.5%) on irrigation test. Thirteen eyes with complete obstruction on irrigation test presented with complete obstruction (11 eyes, 84.6%) or secondary dilation (2 eyes, 15.4%) of the lacrimal sac at DCG. In terms of the level of obstruction, there was no difference between the two examinations. However, twelve eyes with complete obstruction at DCG; showed narrowing (4 eyes, 33%), granulation tissue (3 eye, 25%), mucus occlusion (2 eyes, 17%), stones (1 eye, 8%), or mucosal edema (2 eyes, 17%) on lacrimal endoscopy. Nineteen eyes with partial obstruction at DCG showed narrowing (6 eyes, 32%), mucus (5 eye, 26%), granulation tissue (4 eyes, 21%), or stones (4 eyes, 21%) on lacrimal endoscopy.
Conclusions: Lacrimal endoscopy allowed real-time observation inside the lacrimal passage that cannot be detected using DCG. Both methods provide comprehensive investigations of the nasolacrimal passage system, and these methods are complementary to understand the pathophysiology of nasolacrimal duct obstruction as well as planning treatment. Lacrimal endoscopy is very useful in investigating the lacrimal drainage passage in patients with NLDO, and this method is comparable to DCG.
Keywords : Dacryocystography, Lacrimal endoscopy, Nasolacrimal duct obstruction


February 2020, 61 (2)