Abstract
Objective
To assess the diagnostic information provided by digital subtraction dacryocystography (DCG) and dacryoendoscopy in patients with epiphora.
Methods
Sixty-eight lacrimal systems of 34 patients with epiphora were prospectively studied. Patients were initially examined with syringing, followed by digital subtraction DCG and dacryoendoscopy to confirm the diagnosis. Obstructions in lacrimal pathways were evaluated by degree, location, and cause. The weighted kappa coefficient was used to compare the agreement between the tests.
Results
Of the 68 lacrimal pathways, partial or complete obstructions were identified in 56 cases (82.3%) with syringing, in 38 cases (55.9%) with DCG, and in 60 cases (88.2%) with dacryoendoscopy. DCG and dacryoendoscopy showed the same result in 42 of the 68 (61.8%) lacrimal pathways. The weighted kappa value for DCG and dacryoendoscopy was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.40–0.81). The most common sites of obstruction were the common canaliculus (36.7%) and the nasolacrimal duct (28.3%) in dacryoendoscopy. Thirty-three lacrimal pathways (48.5%) were identified to have obstructions on the same level between DCG and dacryoendoscopy. Among the 30 lacrimal pathways (44.1%) that were normal by DCG, obstruction was revealed in 22 cases by dacryoendoscopy, with 11 cases in the common canaliculus. Additional useful information on the cause of obstruction and identification of multiple obstructed sites was provided by dacryoendoscopy.
Conclusions
DCG and dacryoendoscopy showed moderate agreement in detecting lacrimal pathway obstruction. Dacryoendoscopy allowed for comprehensive investigations of the lacrimal pathway and can help explain unidentified factors associated with lacrimal pathway obstruction in patients with epiphora.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Montanara A, Catalino P, Gualdi M. Improved radiological technique for evaluating the lacrimal pathways with special emphasis on functional disorders. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1979;57:547–63.
Detorakis ET, Zissimopoulos A, Ioannakis K, Kozobolis VP. Lacrimal outflow mechanisms and the role of scintigraphy: current trends. World J Nucl Med. 2014;13:16–21.
Ashenhurst M, Jaffer N, Hurwitz JJ, Corin SM. Combined computed tomography and dacryocystography for complex lacrimal problems. Can J Ophthalmol. 1991;26:27–31.
Papathanassiou S, Koch T, Suhling MC, Lenarz T, Durisin M, Stolle SRO, et al. Computed tomography versus dacryocystography for the evaluation of the nasolacrimal duct-a study With 72 patients. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2019;4:393–8.
Galloway JE, Kavic TA, Raflo GT. Digital subtraction macrodacryocystography. A new method of lacrimal system imaging. Ophthalmology. 1984;91:956–62.
Saleh GM, Gauba V, Tsangaris P, Tharmaseelan K. Digital subtraction dacryocystography and syringing in the management of epiphora. Orbit. 2007;26:249–53.
Sasaki T, Nagata Y, Sugiyama K. Nasolacrimal duct obstruction classified by dacryoendoscopy and treated with inferior meatal dacryorhinotomy. Part I: Positional diagnosis of primary nasolacrimal duct obstruction with dacryoendoscope. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;140:1065–9.
Freitag SK, Woog JJ, Kousoubris PD, Curtin HD. Helical computed tomographic dacryocystography with three-dimensional reconstruction: a new view of the lacrimal drainage system. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;18:121–32.
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74.
Takahashi Y, Nakamura Y, Kakizaki H. Dacryoendoscopic findings in the lacrimal passage in failed dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;29:373–5.
Irfan S, Cassels-Brown A, Nelson M. Comparison between nasolacrimal syringing/probing, macrodacryocystography and surgical findings in the management of epiphora. Eye (Lond). 1998;12(Pt 2):197–202.
Cibis GW, Spurney RO, Waeltermann J. Radiographic visualization of congenital lacrimal sac mucoceles. Ann Ophthalmol. 1986;18:68–9.
Manfre L, de Maria M, Todaro E, Mangiameli A, Ponte F, Lagalla R. MR dacryocystography: comparison with dacryocystography and CT dacryocystography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21:1145–50.
Sousa PC, Pinto P, Leite E, Cunha-Vaz JG. Morphological and/or functional imagiology diagnosis of epiphora. Doc Ophthalmol. 1993;83:337–48.
Guzek JP, Ching AS, Hoang TA, Dure-Smith P, Llaurado JG, Yau DC, et al. Clinical and radiologic lacrimal testing in patients with epiphora. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:1875–81.
Wearne MJ, Pitts J, Frank J, Rose GE. Comparison of dacryocystography and lacrimal scintigraphy in the diagnosis of functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:1032–5.
Nahata MC. Dacryocystography in diseases of the lacrimal SAC. Am J Ophthalmol. 1964;58:490–3.
Francisco FC, Carvalho AC, Francisco VF, Francisco MC, Neto GT. Evaluation of 1000 lacrimal ducts by dacryocystography. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:43–6.
Nixon J, Birchall IW, Virjee J. The role of dacryocystography in the management of patients with epiphora. Br J Radio. 1990;63:337–9.
Conway ST. Evaluation and management of “functional” nasolacrimal blockage: results of a survey of the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive surgery. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;10:185–7.
Ali MJ, Paulsen F. Human lacrimal drainage system reconstruction, recanalization, and regeneration. Curr Eye Res. 2020;45:241–52.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
This study was funded by Sung Wha medical Inc. (Seoul, Korea) – the seller of dacryoendoscope. The sponsor had no role in the design of the study, collection and analysis of data and decision to publish. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bae, S.H., Park, J. & Lee, J.K. Comparison of digital subtraction dacryocystography and dacryoendoscopy in patients with epiphora. Eye 35, 877–882 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-0990-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-0990-1
This article is cited by
-
Pain management in lacrimal lavage: insights from a comparative study
International Ophthalmology (2025)
-
Soft stop on syringing and probing may have a high false-positive rate in diagnosing pre-sac obstruction
International Ophthalmology (2022)
-
Syringing has limited reliability in differentiating nasolacrimal duct stenosis from functional delay
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2022)
