[Recanalization of nasolacrimal duct with radio frequency: preliminary study].

Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2012 · Benefit · Very low evidence

← Research stream

BenefitVery low evidencePaper 3141

In 16 patients followed for at least 120 days, at the 90-day postoperative visit 13/16 (81.25%) had positive irrigation indicating duct clearance, while 3/16 (18.75%) had irrigation failure. The authors conclude the radiofrequency procedure was effective for …

Study snapshot

PublicationArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2012

Study typeother

Reported directionBenefit

Evidence ratingVery low

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the nasolacrimal duct reconstitution with radio frequency for restoration of lacrimal flow in cases of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. METHODS: The procedure was carried out in 16 eyes of 16 patients (13 women and 3 men) by the same surgeon, with monopolar high-frequency device at 450 kHz and 150 W, with local anesthesia under sedation. Inclusion criteria were lower lacrimal system obstruction (confirmed by dacryocystogram) and age over 18 years old. Exclusion criteria were previous trauma, acute dacryocystitis, cutaneous fistula, mucocele, previous lacrimal surgery and cardiac pacemaker. RESULTS: Patients were followed for at least 120 days, patients were clinically evaluated at outpatient clinics for the presence of secretion, epiphora, reflux at compression of the lacrimal sac, placement of silicone tube and Milder test. At the 90-day postoperative visit, 13 patients had positive irrigation (81.25%) with clearance of lacrimal duct and 3 cases (18.75%) presented irrigation failure. CONCLUSION: Nasolacrimal duct reconstitution with radio frequency was effective in treating nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother

Effect directionbenefit

PopulationAdults (>18 years) with lower lacrimal system (nasolacrimal duct) obstruction

Sample size16

Exposure0.45 MHz

Evidence strengthVery lowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Nasolacrimal duct patency/clearance (positive irrigation)
Irrigation failure
Clinical signs/symptoms: secretion, epiphora, reflux on lacrimal sac compression
Milder test
Silicone tube placement

Limitations

Preliminary study
Small sample size (16 patients)
No control/comparator group described
Single-surgeon procedure

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "medical radiofrequency device (monopolar high-frequency)",
    "frequency_mhz": 0.45,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Adults (>18 years) with lower lacrimal system (nasolacrimal duct) obstruction",
  "sample_size": 16,
  "outcomes": [
    "Nasolacrimal duct patency/clearance (positive irrigation)",
    "Irrigation failure",
    "Clinical signs/symptoms: secretion, epiphora, reflux on lacrimal sac compression",
    "Milder test",
    "Silicone tube placement"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In 16 patients followed for at least 120 days, at the 90-day postoperative visit 13/16 (81.25%) had positive irrigation indicating duct clearance, while 3/16 (18.75%) had irrigation failure. The authors conclude the radiofrequency procedure was effective for nasolacrimal duct obstruction.",
  "effect_direction": "benefit",
  "limitations": [
    "Preliminary study",
    "Small sample size (16 patients)",
    "No control/comparator group described",
    "Single-surgeon procedure"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "very_low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency",
    "nasolacrimal duct obstruction",
    "recanalization",
    "lacrimal flow",
    "ophthalmology",
    "450 kHz",
    "monopolar device"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1590/s0004-27492012000600008
PubMed: 23715144

Read the original paper →