Refractive Status of Children with Unilateral Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction
Aysel Pelit, MD; Nedime Sahinoğlu-Keskek, MD; Handan Canan, MD
Baskent University, Faculty of Medicine, Adana Education and Research Center, Department of Ophthalmology
Introduction: Aside from refractive errors, many risk factors may be ambliogenic. Studies indicated that children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) have a higher prevalence of amblyopia. The objective of this study was to investigate refractive status of children who underwent probing for unilateral NLDO.
Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study included consecutive children with unilateral congenital NLDO. All of the patients underwent a complete ophthalmic evaluation including cycloplegic refraction before probing. Refractive errors of the involved and sound fellow eyes were compared.
Results: Fifty-one children were included in this study. The mean age at presentation was 21.5±1.3 months (range, 12 to 46 months). Based on spherical equivalent refractive error, hyperopia was common in the affected eyes, however there was no statistical significantly difference between two eyes (p=1.00). Anisometropia more than 0.5 diopters (D) was present in 11.7 % of patients. Interocular difference was statistically significant in terms of cylindrical refractive error (p=0.01) but not spherical refractive error and spherical equivalent (p=0.17, p=1 respectively).
Discussion: Congenital NLDO is a common childhood disorder which usually improves spontaneously during the first year of life; however its effect on refractive status and any correlation with ambliyopia have been controversial. In the recent years, CNLDO has been speculated to have an increased risk of amblyopia. In our study, anisometropia is found higher in patients with unilateral congenital NLDO.
Conclusion: It is advisable to perform detailed ophthalmological examination including refraction and initiate proper follow up program at a younger age in cases of NLDO.
References: 1.Indian J Ophthalmol 2016 jul;64(7):498-499|2.Ophthalmic Vis Res 2012;7(4):310-315|3.Indian J Ophthalmol 2013 Dec;61(12):698-700