A Pilot Study of Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Dacryocystography Imaging to Assess Functional Epiphora

ABSTRACT

Objective

To evaluate dynamic magnetic resonance dacryocystography (MRDCG) in eyes with functional epiphora.

Methods

We included prospective eyes with epiphora if no alternative cause was found on clinical examination, were patent on syringing, had no obstruction or stenosis on DCG, and had an abnormal DSG. MRDCG was performed to qualitatively assess for block or patency and quantitatively measure tear transit time. We compared measurements to asymptomatic fellow eyes and to historical reference values from asymptomatic eyes.

Results

We included 26 symptomatic eyes of 19 patients (median age 63 years). There was a block on MRDCG in 18 (69%) eyes and patency in 8 (31%) eyes. The block occurred at the sac-nasolacrimal duct (NLD) junction in 9 (50%), proximal NLD in 5 (28%), mid-NLD in 1 (5.6%), and distal NLD in 1 (5.6%) eye(s). No contrast was observed in the lacrimal system in two eyes. For eyes patent on MRDCG, median times to the sac, NLD, inferior meatus, first 25%, and first 50% of the fundus-to-nose distance (FND) were 22, 54, 118, 34, and 84 s, respectively. Times to the sac, NLD, and to fill the first 25% and 50% of the FND were significantly longer than historical values from asymptomatic lacrimal systems (p = 0.017, 0.050, 0.035, 0.017, respectively).

Conclusion

MRDCG shows a high rate of block in functional epiphora. However, DSG and MRDCG results may not always correlate. The improved temporal resolution of this emerging modality may be advantageous in the critical first 2 min of tear transit.

KEYWORDS:

• Epiphora
• magnetic resonance imaging
• lacrimal drainage
• dacryocystography

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Author Contribution Statement

Conceptualization: S.P. and D.S.; Data curation: C.Z.M., Y.S., and J.T.; Formal analysis: C.Z.M.; Investigation: C.Z.M., Y.S., J.T., K.H., and P.D.; Methodology: Y.S., J.T., K.H., P.D., S.P., and D.S.; Project administration: K.H., P.D., S.P., and D.S.; Resources: S.P. and D.S.; Supervision: S.P. and D.S.; Validation: C.Z.M., Y.S., and J.T.; Visualization: C.Z.M. and Y.S.; Writing – original draft: C.Z.M., Y.S., and J.T.; Writing – review & editing: C.Z.M., Y.S., J.T., S.P., and D.S.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported that there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.