Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
28.03.2026
Размер:
11.93 Mб
Скачать

19 Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction and Lacrimal Surgery in Cancer Patients

247

Punctal stenosis has been reported with the topical use of mitomycin C [22]. The puncta and canaliculi are the most commonly affected sites [23].

S-1 is an antineoplastic prodrug of 5-fluorouracil used in the treatment of gastrointestinal carcinomas. It has been reported to cause punctal, canalicular, and nasolacrimal duct obstruction [24].

Idiopathic acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction is a diagnosis of exclusion in cancer patients, but this type of nasolacrimal duct obstruction would be expected to be at least as common in cancer patients as in noncancer patients.

19.4 Evaluation

Evaluation of cancer patients with suspected nasolacrimal duct obstruction requires taking a thorough history with attention to symptoms and signs of epiphora, medical problems, cancer history, medications used (including previous chemotherapy), radiation therapy, and surgeries in the orbital area. A comprehensive ophthalmic examination is necessary and should include particular attention to the appearance and position of the puncta and a careful search for masses in the nose or the periorbital area. Probing and irrigation of the lacrimal drainage apparatus should be performed, and it should be noted whether there is any resistance in the canalicular system, how far a probe is able to be passed, and whether fluid refluxes out of or passes into the nasopharynx. A Schirmer’s test should be performed to provide an objective measurement of tear production. This can also help identify dry eye syndrome, a common cause of “pseudoepiphora.”

Although not typically used in most patients, tear testing can be performed to further evaluate flow through the tear drainage system. Tear testing can include the dye disappearance test, Jones I test, and Jones II test.

In certain cases, imaging may be necessary to further assess the lacrimal drainage system. Available modalities include fluoroscopy, dacryoscintigraphy, computed tomography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging.

19.5 Treatment

In the case of mild, early obstruction associated with chemotherapy, probing and irrigation alone may provide relief. Balloon dilation, though not used in our practice, is another noninvasive option; however, it must be repeated, and its efficacy in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced lacrimal obstruction is unclear.

In many cases, if the nasolacrimal duct obstruction is identified early, before it is complete, intubation of the drainage system with silicone stents can prevent progression to complete obstruction and the need for more invasive surgical procedures. Use of stents should be based on findings on probing and irrigation of the system; stents should not be placed solely because of exposure in the absence of signs and symptoms of obstruction.

248

A. Savar and B. Esmaeli

For anatomic blockage of the nasolacrimal duct, DCR is the standard treatment. This procedure creates an artificial connection between the lacrimal sac and the middle meatus of the nose, bypassing the nasolacrimal duct. Silicone stents are placed at the time of surgery to maintain patency during healing. The outcome of DCR in head and neck cancer patients was evaluated by Diba et al. [9], who found a failure rate of 17% in these patients. This increased rate is likely due to the multifactorial nature of nasolacrimal duct obstruction in head and neck cancer patients, many of whom are exposed to chemotherapy, high-dose radiation therapy with its sequelae of nasal mucosal chronic long-term inflammation and fibrosis, and previous surgery including complex reconstruction with free flaps in the area. In patients with a history of irradiation of the area, surgery should be delayed for at least 12 months if possible as the risk of recurrent obstruction is higher. Additionally, in patients who have received radiation to the lacrimal drainage system, stents should be left in place for an extended period of time, usually at least 6 months.

DCR can be performed via an open external approach or via an endoscopic approach. Debate exists over which method is preferable. Similar results have been reported with the two methods in various studies of idiopathic acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction, but most studies report a higher failure rate with the endoscopic approach. Although the underlying mechanism of obstruction in cancer patients is different from that of idiopathic acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction, DCR by either method is reasonable for cancer patients. In our practice, external DCR is preferred because the anatomy is often markedly abnormal due to prior surgery or other therapies.

If the canaliculi are significantly obstructed, conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy with Pyrex glass tube (“Jones tube”) placement is usually necessary. Complications are more common in patients requiring Jones tube placement than in patients undergoing standard DCR. In a study of 49 patients who had Jones tube placement, extrusion, obstruction, and malposition were the most common complications, seen in 49%, 47%, and 33% of treated patients, respectively. Other complications included discomfort, infection, and diplopia. Despite this, 70% of patients reported being satisfied after the procedure [25].

References

1.Bartley GB. Acquired lacrimal drainage obstruction: an etiologic classification system, case reports, and a review of the literature. Part 1. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;8:237–42.

2.Bartley GB. Acquired lacrimal drainage obstruction: an etiologic classification system, case reports, and a review of the literature. Part 2. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;8:243–9.

3.Bartley GB. Acquired lacrimal drainage obstruction: an etiologic classification system, case reports, and a review of the literature. Part 3. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;9:11–26.

4.Lee-Wing MW, Ashenhurst ME. Clinicopathologic analysis of 166 patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology 2001;108:2038–40.

5.Valenzuela AA, McNab AA, Selva D, et al. Clinical features and management of tumors affecting the lacrimal drainage apparatus. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;22:96–101.

6.Stefanyszyn MA, Hidayat AA, Pe’er JJ, et al. Lacrimal sac tumors. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1994;10:169–84.

19 Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction and Lacrimal Surgery in Cancer Patients

249

7.Yip CC, Bartley GB, Habermann TM, et al. Involvement of the lacrimal drainage system by leukemia or lymphoma. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;18:242–6.

8.Wladis EJ, Frempong T, Gausas R. Nasolacrimal metastasis from hepatocellular carcinoma masquerading as dacryocystitis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;23:333–5.

9.Diba R, Saadati H, Esmaeli B. Outcomes of dacryocystorhinostomy in patients with head and neck tumors. Head Neck 2005;27:72–5.

10.Kloos RT, Duvuuri V, Jhiang SM, et al. Nasolacrimal drainage system obstruction from radioactive iodine therapy for thyroid carcinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002;87:5817–20.

11.Shepler TR, Sherman SI, Faustina MM, et al. Nasolacrimal duct obstruction associated with radioactive iodine therapy for thyroid carcinoma. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;19: 479–81.

12.Morgenstern KE, Vadysirisack DD, Zhang Z, et al. Expression of sodium iodide symporter in the lacrimal drainage system: implication for the mechanism underlying nasolacrimal duct obstruction in I(131)-treated patients. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;21:337–44.

13.Haidak DJ, Hurwitz BS, Yeung KY. Tear-duct fibrosis (dacryostenosis) due to 5-fluorouracil. Ann Intern Med 1978;88:657.

14.Caravella LP Jr, Burns JA, Zangmeister M. Punctal–canalicular stenosis related to systemic fluorouracil therapy. Arch Ophthalmol 1981;99:284–6.

15.Eiseman AS, Flanagan JC, Brooks AB, et al. Ocular surface, ocular adnexal, and lacrimal complications associated with the use of systemic 5-fluorouracil. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;19(3):216–24.

16.Esmaeli B, Ahmadi MA, Rivera E, et al. Docetaxel secretion in tears: association with lacrimal drainage obstruction. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:1180–2.

17.Esmaeli B, Burnstine MA, Ahmadi MA, et al. Docetaxel-induced histologic changes in the lacrimal sac and the nasal mucosa. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;19:305–8.

18.Esmaeli B, Amin S, Valero V, et al. Prospective study of incidence and severity of epiphora and canalicular stenosis in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3619–22.

19.Esmaeli B, Hidaji L, Adinin RB, et al. Blockage of the lacrimal drainage apparatus as a side effect of docetaxel therapy. Cancer 2003;98:504–7.

20.Ahmadi MA, Esmaeli B. Surgical treatment of canalicular stenosis in patients receiving weekly docetaxel. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1802–4.

21.McCartney E, Valluri S, Rushing D, et al. Upper and lower system nasolacrimal duct stenosis secondary to paclitaxel. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;23:170–1.

22.Billing K, Karagiannis A, Selva D. Punctal–canalicular stenosis associated with mitomycin-C for corneal epithelial dysplasia. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;136(4):746–7.

23.Kopp ED, Seregard S. Epiphora as a side effect of topical mitomycin C. Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88(11):1422–4.

24.Esmaeli B, Golio D, Lubecki L, et al. Canalicular and nasolacrimal duct blockage: an ocular side effect associated with the antineoplastic drug S-1. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;140:325–7.

25.Lim C, Martin P, Benger R, et al. Lacrimal canalicular bypass surgery with the Lester Jones tube. Am J Ophthalmol 2004;137:101–8.