The Experts below are selected from a list of 321 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Michael X Repka - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
office probing for treatment of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction in infants
Journal of Aapos, 2014Co-Authors: Aaron M Miller, Michael X Repka, Danielle L Chandler, Darren L Hoover, Michele Melia, Paul J Rychwalski, David I SilbertAbstract:Purpose To determine whether demographic or clinical factors are associated with the outcome of office-based Nasolacrimal Duct probing for the treatment of congenital Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction (NLDO). Methods In two multicenter prospective studies, 384 eyes of 304 children aged 6 to Results Office probing was successful in 75% of eyes overall (95% CI, 70%-80%). The procedure was less successful in eyes of children with bilateral NLDO compared with unilateral NLDO (63% vs 80%; relative risk = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]) and in eyes that had 2 or 3 clinical signs of NLDO compared with one (71% vs 83%; relative risk = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]). Treatment success did not appear to be related to age, specific clinical signs of NLDO, prior treatment, or research study. Conclusions Performing Nasolacrimal Duct probing in the office successfully treats NLDO in the majority of cases in children aged 6 to
-
Repeat probing for treatment of persistent Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction.
Journal of Aapos, 2009Co-Authors: Michael X Repka, Danielle L Chandler, Bremer Dl, Mary Louise Z. Collins, Lee DhAbstract:Repeat probing of the Nasolacrimal Duct is one treatment option for children with persistent symptoms of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction (NLDO) following an initial probing. The authors conDucted a prospective, multicenter study in which 20 subjects age 6 to
-
balloon catheter dilation and Nasolacrimal Duct intubation for treatment of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction after failed probing
Archives of Ophthalmology, 2009Co-Authors: Michael X Repka, Danielle L Chandler, Jonathan M Holmes, Darren L Hoover, Christine L Morse, Susan Schloff, David I Silbert, Robbins D TienAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of balloon catheter dilation and Nasolacrimal intubation as treatment for congenital Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction after failed probing in children younger than 4 years. METHODS: We conDucted a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter study that enrolled 159 children aged 6 months to younger than 48 months who had a history of a single failed Nasolacrimal Duct probing and at least 1 of the following clinical signs of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction: epiphora, mucous discharge, or increased tear lake. One hundred ninety-nine eyes underwent either balloon catheter Nasolacrimal Duct dilation or Nasolacrimal Duct intubation. Treatment success was defined as absence of epiphora, mucous discharge, or increased tear lake at the outcome visit 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: Treatment success was reported in 65 of 84 eyes (77%; 95% confidence interval, 65%-85%) in the balloon catheter dilation group compared with 72 of 88 eyes (84% after adjustment for intereye correlation; 74%-91%) in the Nasolacrimal intubation group (risk ratio for success for intubation vs balloon dilation, 1.08; 0.95-1.22). CONCLUSION: Both balloon catheter dilation and Nasolacrimal Duct intubation alleviate the clinical signs of persistent Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction in a similar percentage of patients.
-
primary treatment of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction with Nasolacrimal Duct intubation in children younger than 4 years of age
Journal of Aapos, 2008Co-Authors: Michael X Repka, Danielle L Chandler, Jonathan M Holmes, Michele B Melia, Roy W Beck, Scott C Atkinson, Alexander Khammar, David G Morrison, Graham E Quinn, David I SilbertAbstract:Purpose To report the outcome of Nasolacrimal Duct intubation as the primary treatment of congenital Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction (NLDO) in children less than 4 years of age.
Miyuki Nagahara - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
predisposing factors for primary acquired Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction
Graefes Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2013Co-Authors: Kazuyoshi Ohtomo, Takashi Ueta, Taku Toyama, Miyuki NagaharaAbstract:Background Pathological origin of primary acquired Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction (PANDO) is considered as inflammation of unknown causes; however, specific predisposing factors have not been fully addressed to date.
David I Silbert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
office probing for treatment of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction in infants
Journal of Aapos, 2014Co-Authors: Aaron M Miller, Michael X Repka, Danielle L Chandler, Darren L Hoover, Michele Melia, Paul J Rychwalski, David I SilbertAbstract:Purpose To determine whether demographic or clinical factors are associated with the outcome of office-based Nasolacrimal Duct probing for the treatment of congenital Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction (NLDO). Methods In two multicenter prospective studies, 384 eyes of 304 children aged 6 to Results Office probing was successful in 75% of eyes overall (95% CI, 70%-80%). The procedure was less successful in eyes of children with bilateral NLDO compared with unilateral NLDO (63% vs 80%; relative risk = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]) and in eyes that had 2 or 3 clinical signs of NLDO compared with one (71% vs 83%; relative risk = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]). Treatment success did not appear to be related to age, specific clinical signs of NLDO, prior treatment, or research study. Conclusions Performing Nasolacrimal Duct probing in the office successfully treats NLDO in the majority of cases in children aged 6 to
-
prevalence of amblyopia risk factors in congenital Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction
Journal of Aapos, 2010Co-Authors: Noelle S Matta, Eric L Singman, David I SilbertAbstract:Purpose To determine whether children who present to an ophthalmology practice for Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction are more likely to have risk factors for amblyopia. Methods A retrospective chart review was conDucted on all patients presenting to a pediatric oculoplastic specialist between January 1, 2001, and August 8, 2009. The review yielded 402 pediatric patients diagnosed with Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction. Children were classified as having amblyopia risk factors on the basis of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus referral criteria. Results Of 402 patients with Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction, 100% received a cyclopegic refraction. Of these, 88 patients (22%) were found to have amblyogenic risk factors; 65 of these patients had amblyogenic refractive errors, 9 had strabismus, and 14 had a combination of the two. Of the 88 patients with amblyopia risk factors, 11% had a family history of strabismus compared with 9% of patients without amblyopia risk factors, which was not a statistically significant difference. There was no other significant pathology found on the dilated fundus examinations except for one child known to have persistent hyperplastic primary vitreous and a congenital cataract and one child with previously known CHARGE syndrome before the examination for Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction. Conclusions Children who present with nasolacromal Duct obstructions seem to be more likely to have amblyopia risk factors and therefore should have a full comprehensive pediatric ophthalmological examination, including cycloplegic refraction.
-
balloon catheter dilation and Nasolacrimal Duct intubation for treatment of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction after failed probing
Archives of Ophthalmology, 2009Co-Authors: Michael X Repka, Danielle L Chandler, Jonathan M Holmes, Darren L Hoover, Christine L Morse, Susan Schloff, David I Silbert, Robbins D TienAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of balloon catheter dilation and Nasolacrimal intubation as treatment for congenital Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction after failed probing in children younger than 4 years. METHODS: We conDucted a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter study that enrolled 159 children aged 6 months to younger than 48 months who had a history of a single failed Nasolacrimal Duct probing and at least 1 of the following clinical signs of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction: epiphora, mucous discharge, or increased tear lake. One hundred ninety-nine eyes underwent either balloon catheter Nasolacrimal Duct dilation or Nasolacrimal Duct intubation. Treatment success was defined as absence of epiphora, mucous discharge, or increased tear lake at the outcome visit 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: Treatment success was reported in 65 of 84 eyes (77%; 95% confidence interval, 65%-85%) in the balloon catheter dilation group compared with 72 of 88 eyes (84% after adjustment for intereye correlation; 74%-91%) in the Nasolacrimal intubation group (risk ratio for success for intubation vs balloon dilation, 1.08; 0.95-1.22). CONCLUSION: Both balloon catheter dilation and Nasolacrimal Duct intubation alleviate the clinical signs of persistent Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction in a similar percentage of patients.
-
primary treatment of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction with Nasolacrimal Duct intubation in children younger than 4 years of age
Journal of Aapos, 2008Co-Authors: Michael X Repka, Danielle L Chandler, Jonathan M Holmes, Michele B Melia, Roy W Beck, Scott C Atkinson, Alexander Khammar, David G Morrison, Graham E Quinn, David I SilbertAbstract:Purpose To report the outcome of Nasolacrimal Duct intubation as the primary treatment of congenital Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction (NLDO) in children less than 4 years of age.
Bita Esmaeli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
multidisciplinary management of lacrimal sac Nasolacrimal Duct carcinomas
Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2013Co-Authors: Tarek Elsawy, Steven J Frank, Ehab Y Hanna, Matthew C Sniegowski, Qasiem J Nasser, Jeffrey N Myers, Bita EsmaeliAbstract:Purpose:To determine the rates of globe-sparing treatment and useful final visual function in patients with primary lacrimal sac/Nasolacrimal Duct carcinomas treated with multidisciplinary therapy.Methods:The medical records of 14 patients with primary lacrimal sac/Nasolacrimal Duct carcinoma treate
-
Multidisciplinary management of lacrimal sac/Nasolacrimal Duct carcinomas
Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2013Co-Authors: Tarek El-sawy, Steven J Frank, Ehab Y Hanna, Matthew C Sniegowski, Qasiem J Nasser, Jeffrey N Myers, Bita EsmaeliAbstract:Purpose:To determine the rates of globe-sparing treatment and useful final visual function in patients with primary lacrimal sac/Nasolacrimal Duct carcinomas treated with multidisciplinary therapy.Methods:The medical records of 14 patients with primary lacrimal sac/Nasolacrimal Duct carcinoma treate
Danielle L Chandler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
office probing for treatment of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction in infants
Journal of Aapos, 2014Co-Authors: Aaron M Miller, Michael X Repka, Danielle L Chandler, Darren L Hoover, Michele Melia, Paul J Rychwalski, David I SilbertAbstract:Purpose To determine whether demographic or clinical factors are associated with the outcome of office-based Nasolacrimal Duct probing for the treatment of congenital Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction (NLDO). Methods In two multicenter prospective studies, 384 eyes of 304 children aged 6 to Results Office probing was successful in 75% of eyes overall (95% CI, 70%-80%). The procedure was less successful in eyes of children with bilateral NLDO compared with unilateral NLDO (63% vs 80%; relative risk = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]) and in eyes that had 2 or 3 clinical signs of NLDO compared with one (71% vs 83%; relative risk = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]). Treatment success did not appear to be related to age, specific clinical signs of NLDO, prior treatment, or research study. Conclusions Performing Nasolacrimal Duct probing in the office successfully treats NLDO in the majority of cases in children aged 6 to
-
Repeat probing for treatment of persistent Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction.
Journal of Aapos, 2009Co-Authors: Michael X Repka, Danielle L Chandler, Bremer Dl, Mary Louise Z. Collins, Lee DhAbstract:Repeat probing of the Nasolacrimal Duct is one treatment option for children with persistent symptoms of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction (NLDO) following an initial probing. The authors conDucted a prospective, multicenter study in which 20 subjects age 6 to
-
balloon catheter dilation and Nasolacrimal Duct intubation for treatment of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction after failed probing
Archives of Ophthalmology, 2009Co-Authors: Michael X Repka, Danielle L Chandler, Jonathan M Holmes, Darren L Hoover, Christine L Morse, Susan Schloff, David I Silbert, Robbins D TienAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of balloon catheter dilation and Nasolacrimal intubation as treatment for congenital Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction after failed probing in children younger than 4 years. METHODS: We conDucted a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter study that enrolled 159 children aged 6 months to younger than 48 months who had a history of a single failed Nasolacrimal Duct probing and at least 1 of the following clinical signs of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction: epiphora, mucous discharge, or increased tear lake. One hundred ninety-nine eyes underwent either balloon catheter Nasolacrimal Duct dilation or Nasolacrimal Duct intubation. Treatment success was defined as absence of epiphora, mucous discharge, or increased tear lake at the outcome visit 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: Treatment success was reported in 65 of 84 eyes (77%; 95% confidence interval, 65%-85%) in the balloon catheter dilation group compared with 72 of 88 eyes (84% after adjustment for intereye correlation; 74%-91%) in the Nasolacrimal intubation group (risk ratio for success for intubation vs balloon dilation, 1.08; 0.95-1.22). CONCLUSION: Both balloon catheter dilation and Nasolacrimal Duct intubation alleviate the clinical signs of persistent Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction in a similar percentage of patients.
-
primary treatment of Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction with Nasolacrimal Duct intubation in children younger than 4 years of age
Journal of Aapos, 2008Co-Authors: Michael X Repka, Danielle L Chandler, Jonathan M Holmes, Michele B Melia, Roy W Beck, Scott C Atkinson, Alexander Khammar, David G Morrison, Graham E Quinn, David I SilbertAbstract:Purpose To report the outcome of Nasolacrimal Duct intubation as the primary treatment of congenital Nasolacrimal Duct obstruction (NLDO) in children less than 4 years of age.
