PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2015; 32(03): 271-276
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1383847
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Association between Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction and Delivery by Cesarean Section

Kristina Spaniol
1   University Eye Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Tobias Stupp
2   University Eye Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
,
Carola Melcher
3   University Womeńs Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Nadja Beheiri
2   University Eye Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
,
Nicole Eter
2   University Eye Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
,
Verena Prokosch
2   University Eye Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

24. Februar 2014

15. Mai 2014

Publikationsdatum:
27. Juni 2014 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNDO) is the most common cause of neonatal epiphora. Persistence can lead to chronic dacryocystitis and amblyopia. This study analyzed the association between the incidence of CNDO and delivery by cesarean section.

Study Design This was a retrospective cohort study of 386 children with CNDO (born between 2000 and 2008). The incidence of the delivery mode in patients with CNDO was compared with data from a corresponding population derived from annual birth statistics.

Results There was no statistically significant association between the overall cesarean section rate and the incidence of CNDO, but primary cesarean section was significantly more frequent among patients with CNDO (73.15%, p < 0.05). The difference was significant for both genders for the period from 2000 to 2008 (p < 0.05%). The relative risk for CNDO was 1.7-fold increased in children delivered by primary cesarean section.

Conclusion Primary cesarean section may be a risk factor for CNDO.

Keywords

neonatal epiphora - lacrimal drainage system - amblyopia - birth
 

  • References

  • 1 MacEwen CJ, Young JD. Epiphora during the first year of life. Eye (Lond) 1991; 5 (Pt 5) 596-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schnall BM. Pediatric nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2013; 24 (5) 421-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Paul TO, Shepherd R. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: natural history and the timing of optimal intervention. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1994; 31 (6) 362-367
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Takahashi Y, Kakizaki H, Chan WO, Selva D. Management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 2010; 88 (5) 506-513
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Prokosch V, Busse H, Thanos S, Eter N, Stupp T. Impact of age on success rate of lacrimal duct irrigation with silicone tube intubation in connatal lacrimal duct stenosis [in German]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2013; 230 (10) 1020-1024
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Matta NS, Silbert DI. High prevalence of amblyopia risk factors in preverbal children with nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 2011; 15 (4) 350-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Piotrowski JT, Diehl NN, Mohney BG. Neonatal dacryostenosis as a risk factor for anisometropia. Arch Ophthalmol 2010; 128 (9) 1166-1169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Young JD, MacEwen CJ. Managing congenital lacrimal obstruction in general practice. BMJ 1997; 315 (7103) 293-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Usha K, Smitha S, Shah N, Lalitha P, Kelkar R. Spectrum and the susceptibilities of microbial isolates in cases of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 2006; 10 (5) 469-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Guerry III D, Kendig Jr ELJ. Congenital impatency of the nasolacrimal duct. Arch Ophthal 1948; 39 (2) 193-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cho CE, Norman M. Cesarean section and development of the immune system in the offspring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208 (4) 249-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hyde MJ, Modi N. The long-term effects of birth by caesarean section: the case for a randomised controlled trial. Early Hum Dev 2012; 88 (12) 943-949
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Moore B. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985; 2 (8452) 436-437
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bulger T, Howden-Chapman P, Stone P. A cut above: the rising Caesarean section rate in New Zealand. N Z Med J 1998; 111 (1059) 30-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizán JM, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, Bergel E. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006; 33 (4) 270-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McFarland LV, Raskin M, Daling JR, Benedetti TJ. Erb/Duchenne's palsy: a consequence of fetal macrosomia and method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 68 (6) 784-788
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kent SE, Reid AP, Nairn ER, Brain DJ. Neonatal septal deviations. J R Soc Med 1988; 81 (3) 132-135
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vadillo-Ortega F, González-Avila G, Villanueva-Diaz C, Bañales JL, Selman-Lama M, Alvarado Durán A. Human amniotic fluid modulation of collagenase production in cultured fibroblasts. A model of fetal membrane rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 164 (2) 664-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kapadia MK, Freitag SK, Woog JJ. Evaluation and management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2006; 39 (5) 959-977 , vii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kiechle M. Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. 1st ed. München: Elsevier, Urban und Fischer; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Kakizaki H, Takahashi Y, Kinoshita S, Shiraki K, Iwaki M. The rate of symptomatic improvement of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in Japanese infants treated with conservative management during the 1st year of age. Clin Ophthalmol 2008; 2 (2) 291-294
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Crigler LW. The treatment of congenital dacryocystitis. J Am Med Assoc 1923; 81: 23-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Nelson LB, Calhoun JH, Menduke H. Medical management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Pediatrics 1985; 76 (2) 172-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Alagöz G, Serin D, Celebi S, Kükner S, Elçioğlu M, Güngel H. Treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction with high-pressure irrigation under topical anesthesia. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 21 (6) 423-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Wolfs GM, van Leeuwen M. Electromyographic observations on the human uterus during labour. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl 1979; 90: 1-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bronfin DR. Misshapen heads in babies: position or pathology?. Ochsner J 2001; 3 (4) 191-199
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Luthy DA, Wardinsky T, Shurtleff DB , et al. Cesarean section before the onset of labor and subsequent motor function in infants with meningomyelocele diagnosed antenatally. N Engl J Med 1991; 324 (10) 662-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gray LP. Deviated nasal septum. Incidence and etiology. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1978; 87 (3 Pt 3) (Suppl. 50) 3-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jeppesen F, Windfeld I. Dislocation of the nasal septal cartilage in the newborn. Aetiology, spontaneous course and treatment. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1972; 51 (1) 5-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Schiebler TH. Anatomie. 9th ed. Heidelberg: Springer DE; 2005
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cannon TW, Wojcik EM, Ferguson CL, Saraga S, Thomas C, Damaser MS. Effects of vaginal distension on urethral anatomy and function. BJU Int 2002; 90 (4) 403-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Stolovitch C, Michaeli A. Hydrostatic pressure as an office procedure for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 2006; 10 (3) 269-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Helmig R, Oxlund H, Petersen LK, Uldbjerg N. Different biomechanical properties of human fetal membranes obtained before and after delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993; 48 (3) 183-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar