Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 15, 2026
Transcanalicular Diode Laser-assisted Dacryocystorhinostomy for the Treatment of Primary Acquired Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction
Published on: October 13, 2017
Office probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a study of parental satisfaction
T A Goldblum1, C G Summers, J E Egbert
1Department of Ophthalmology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
Insights
Parental satisfaction with office-based nasolacrimal probings for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction is high. Most parents prefer this method over general anesthesia, finding it effective and recommending it for their children.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Pediatric Surgery
Background:
- Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction is common in infants.
- Nasolacrimal probing is a standard treatment, often performed under general anesthesia.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess parental satisfaction with office-based nasolacrimal probing without sedation.
- To compare parental preference for office-based versus general anesthesia procedures.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective chart review of 81 children under 4 years undergoing office nasolacrimal probing.
- Telephone survey of 67 caretakers regarding satisfaction, effectiveness, and complications.
Main Results:
- 86% of caretakers reported satisfaction with the office procedure.
- 81% preferred office probing over general anesthesia; only 6% were unsure.
- Satisfaction was similar across age groups but slightly lower for unsuccessful or bilateral probings.
Conclusions:
- Office-based nasolacrimal probing without sedation is a satisfactory procedure for most parents.
- Parents generally prefer the office-based technique when offered a choice compared to general anesthesia.
Purpose:
To determine parental satisfaction with nasolacrimal probings performed in the office without sedation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
Methods:
We reviewed the charts of 81 consecutive children under 4 years of age who underwent nasolacrimal probings in our office. Sixty-seven caretakers of these children were contacted by telephone to determine parental satisfaction, probing effectiveness, procedural complications, and future recommendations. A comparison between parental satisfaction and patient age, probing effectiveness, and unilateral versus bilateral probings was performed.
Results:
Most caretakers (86%) were satisfied with the procedure and most (81%) would prefer the probing to be performed in the office rather than under general anesthesia (6% were unsure). Satisfaction rates were similar between the different age groups (P > .5 by Chi-square analysis), but were slightly lower in the unsuccessful probing and bilateral probing subgroups. Parents of children who underwent both an office procedure and a subsequent procedure under general anesthesia tended to prefer the office-based technique.
Conclusion:
The majority of caretakers of children who underwent unilateral or bilateral nasolacrimal probings in the office without sedation were satisfied with the procedure and, when given a choice, preferred it over probings performed under general anesthesia.
