×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
News Contact
Review paper

Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: caesarean section vs. vaginal delivery

By
Aydın Yildiz Orcid logo
Aydın Yildiz
Contact Aydın Yildiz

Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University , Canakkale , Turkey

Abstract

Aim
To investigate the association between the incidence of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNDO) and delivery by caesarean section or spontaneous vaginal labour.
Methods
A total of 40 patients who were diagnosed as CNDO and treated with lacrimal probing between January 2011 and February 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (caesarean section delivery) and group 2 (spontaneous vaginal delivery).
Results
A total of 22 patients delivered by caesarean section (group 1) were compared with 18 patients delivered by spontaneous vaginal labour. There were 10 male (45%), 12 female (55%) patients in group 1 and nine (50 %) males, nine females (50 %) patients in group 2. The mean age of group 1 was 14.85 months (12-22 month) and group 2 was 15.20 months (12-23 month). Mean birth time was 38.1 week (36-40 week) in group 1 and 39.4 week (38-41 week) in group 2. There was no statistically significant difference between the age, gender and birth time between the groups (p>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the way of delivery (caesarean section or spontaneous vaginal delivery) and the incidence of CNDO (p>0.05).
Conclusion
Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction was found less frequently among the patients delivered by vaginal delivery comparing to the patients with caesarean delivery, however this difference was not statistically significant. It is considered that, with the studies which include more patients, the difference may become significant.

References

1.
Macewen C, Young J. Epiphora during the first year of life. Eye. 1991;596–600.
2.
Tucker N, Tucker S, Linberg J. The anatomy of the canaliculus. Arch Ophtalmol. 1996;1231–4.
3.
Ipek E, Esin K, Amac K, Mustafa G, Candan A. Morphological and evaluation of lacrimal groove. Anat Sci Int. 2007;207–10.
4.
Katowitz J, Kropp T. Congenital abnormalities of the lacrimal drainage system. 1990;1397–416.
5.
Maceven C. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Compr Ophtalmol Update. 2006;79–87.
6.
Takahashi Y, Kakizaki H, Chan W, Selva D. Management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Acta Ophtalmol. 2010;506–13.
7.
Zwaan J. Treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction before and after the age of 1 year. Ophtalmol Surg Lasers. 1997;932–6.
8.
Ciftci F, Akman A, Sonmez M, Unal M, Güngör A, Yaylali V. Systematic, combined treatment approach to nasolacrimal duct obstruction in different age groups. Eur J Ophtalmol. 2000;324–9.
9.
Maceven C, Young J. The fluorescein disappearance test: an evaluation of its use in infants. J Pediatr Ophthalmol and Strabismus. 1991;302–5.
10.
Noda S, Hayasaka S, Setogawa T. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in Japanese infants: its incidence and treatment with massage. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1991;20–2.
11.
Aldahash F, Al-Mubarak M, Alenizi S, Yh AF. Risk factors for developing congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2014;58–60.
12.
Yie Y. The inheritance of congenital nasolacrimal duct stenosis. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 1989;349–50.
13.
Barham H, Wudel J, Enzenauer R, Chan K. Congenital nasolacrimal duct cyst/dacryocystocele: an argument for a genetic basis. Allergy Rhinol (Providence). 2012;46–9.
14.
Zhang C, Wu Q, Cui Y, Yu G. Anatomy of nasolacrimal canal in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction -18 cases retrospective study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015;404.
15.
Moscato E, Kelly J, Weiss A. Developmental anatomy of the nasolacrimal duct: implications for congenital obstruction. Ophthalmology. 2010;2430–4.

Citation

Authors retain copyright. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License

 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.