Nasolacrimal Obstruction Following the Placement of Maxillofacial Hardware. Issue 1 (March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kang, J. Minjy; Kalin-Hajdu, Evan; Idowu, Oluwatobi O.; Vagefi, M. Reza; Kersten, Robert C.
• Is Part Of: Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction. Volume 13:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 32
• Page End: 37
• Publication Date: 2020-03
• Subjects: nasolacrimal obstruction -- epiphora -- orbital implants -- orbital reconstruction -- facial reconstruction -- dacryocystorhinostomy; Face -- Wounds and injuries -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Wounds and injuries -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery; Face -- Wounds and injuries; Maxilla -- Surgery; Maxilla -- Wounds and injuries; Maxillofacial Injuries -- Periodicals; Craniocerebral Trauma -- Periodicals; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- methods -- Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; Periodicals; Periodicals; 617.522
• DOI: 10.1177/1943387520906004
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1943-3875

Abstract

Purpose: This article reviews cases of nasolacrimal obstruction (NLO) secondary to maxillofacial hardware placement. Methods: A retrospective review was performed at a single institution from 2012 to 2017 of patients with NLO following maxillofacial reconstruction. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of California, San Francisco, adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki, and was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Patients were included if external dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) confirmed previously placed maxillofacial hardware as the primary contributor to lacrimal outflow obstruction and had at least 3 months of follow-up. Results: Of 420 patients who underwent external DCR, 6 cases of implant-related NLO were identified. The mean age was 47.3 ± 9.6 years and 66.7% of patients were male. All patients presented with epiphora and 50% also had chronic dacryocystitis. Patients had prior maxillofacial hardware placement for paranasal sinus tumors (66.7%) or facial fractures (33.3%). In addition to external DCR, all patients had revision or removal of implants that were impeding lacrimal outflow by 2 mechanisms: (1) an orbital implant impinging the lacrimal sac or nasolacrimal duct (NLD) and/or (2) maxillofacial screws placed into the bony NLD or nasolacrimal fossa. Five of the 6 patients (83.3%) had complete resolution of symptoms and patency of the nasolacrimal system at their last follow-up visit (range 3-30 months). Conclusion: NLO secondary to hardware placement, though infrequent, is underreported. Two mechanisms of hardware-induced NLO were encountered in this case series. Specific attention to nasolacrimal anatomy at the time of maxillofacial reconstruction may help minimize implant-induced NLO.