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

REFERENCES

• Perry JD. Dysfunctional epiphora: a critique of our current construct of “functional epiphora”. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 07 01;154(1):3–5. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2012.02.034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan W, Malhotra R, Kakizaki H, Leibovitch I, Selva D. Perspective: what does the term functional mean in the context of epiphora? Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;40(7):749–754. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2012.02791.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh S, Nair AG, Kamal S. A review on functional epiphora-current understanding and existing lacunae. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2019;14(3):169–177. doi:10.1080/17469899.2019.1618708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kashkouli MB, Mirzajani H, Jamshidian-Tehrani M, Shahrzad S, Sanjari MS. Fluorescein dye disappearance test: a reliable test in assessment of success after dacryocystorhinostomy procedure. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;31(4):296–299. doi:10.1097/iop.0000000000000308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kashkouli MB, Mirzajani H, Jamshidian-Tehrani M, Pakdel F, Nojomi M, Aghaei GH. Reliability of fluorescein dye disappearance test in assessment of adults with nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. May-Jun, 2013;29(3):167–169. doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e3182873b40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roh JH, Chi MJ. Efficacy of dye disappearance test and tear meniscus height in diagnosis and postoperative assessment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 2010;88(3):e73–e77. doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.01873.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zappia RJ, Milder B. Lacrimal drainage function. 1. the Jones fluorescein test. Am J Ophthalmol. Jul, 1972;74(1):154–159. doi:10.1016/0002-9394(72)91141-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzek JP, Ching AS, Hoang T-A, et al. Clinical and radiologic lacrimal testing in patients with epiphora. Ophthalmology. 11 01 1997;104(11):1875–1881. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(97)30013-X.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bae SH, Park J, Lee JK. Comparison of digital subtraction dacryocystography and dacryoendoscopy in patients with epiphora. Eye. 03 01, 2021;35(3):877–882. doi:10.1038/s41433-020-0990-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapira Y, Juniat V, Macri C, Selva D. Syringing has limited reliability in differentiating nasolacrimal duct stenosis from functional delay. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;260(9):1–6. doi:10.1007/s00417-022-05654-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wearne MJ, Pitts J, Frank J, Rose GE. Comparison of dacryocystography and lacrimal scintigraphy in the diagnosis of functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Br J Ophthalmol. Sep, 1999;83(9):1032–1035. doi:10.1136/bjo.83.9.1032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peter NM, Pearson AR. Comparison of dacryocystography and lacrimal scintigraphy in the investigation of epiphora in patients with patent but nonfunctioning lacrimal systems. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. May-Jun, 2009;25(3):201–205. doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e3181a2ef32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macri C, Shapira Y, Selva D. Lacrimal imaging findings in fellow asymptomatic eyes of unilateral epiphora. European Journal Of Ophthalmology. Mar 9, 2022;32(6):3328–3332. doi:10.1177/11206721221085426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sia PI, Curragh D, Howell S, Selva D. Interobserver agreement on interpretation of conventional dacryocystography and dacryoscintigraphy findings: a retrospective single-centre study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;47(6):713–717. doi:10.1111/ceo.13502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagili S, Selva D, Malhotra R. Lacrimal scintigraphy: “interpretation more art than science. Orbit. Apr, 2012;31(2):77–85. doi:10.3109/01676830.2011.648797.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vonica OA, Obi E, Sipkova Z, Soare C, Pearson AR. The value of lacrimal scintillography in the assessment of patients with epiphora. Eye (Lond). Jul, 2017;31(7):1020–1026. doi:10.1038/eye.2017.20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amrith S, Goh PS, Wang S-C. Tear flow dynamics in the human nasolacrimal ducts—a pilot study using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005 02 01;243(2):127–131. doi:10.1007/s00417-004-1045-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sipkova Z, Obi EE, Olurin O, Mota PM, Vonica O, Pearson AR. Comparison of a manometric tear duct irrigation test with dacryoscintigraphy in the investigation of epiphora. Orbit. 11 01, 2020;39(6):403–407. doi:10.1080/01676830.2019.1704033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sia PI, Curragh D, Patel S, Rajak S, Drivas P, Selva D. Time-resolved three-dimensional technique for dynamic magnetic resonance dacryocystography. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. Dec, 2019;47(9):1131–1137. doi:10.1111/ceo.13618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang Y, Lee M-L, He X, Rosner B, Yan J. Wilcoxon rank-based tests for clustered data with R package clusrank. J Stat Softw. 2020 12 11;96(6):1–26. doi:10.18637/jss.v096.i06.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amanat L, Wraight E, Watson P, Hawkins T. Role of lacrimal scintigraphy and subtraction macrodacryocystography in the management of epiphora. Br J Ophthalmol. 1979;63(7):511–519. doi:10.1136/bjo.63.7.511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chavis RM, Welham RA, Maisey MN. Quantitative lacrimal scintillography. Arch Ophthalmol. Nov, 1978;96(11):2066–2068. doi:10.1001/archopht.1978.03910060454013.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown M, El Gammal TAM, Luxenberg MN, Eubig C. The value, limitations, and applications of nuclear dacryocystography. Semin Nucl Med. 1981 10 01;11(4):250–257. doi:10.1016/S0001-2998(81)80022-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlton WH, Trueblood JH, Rossomondo RM. Clinical evaluation of microscintigraphy of the lacrimal drainage apparatus. J Nucl Med. 1973;14:89–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurwitz JJ, Maisey MN, Welham RA. Quantitative lacrimal scintillography. I. Method and physiological application. Br J Ophthalmol. Jun, 1975;59(6):308–312. doi:10.1136/bjo.59.6.308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakamura J, Kamao T, Mitani A, Mizuki N, Shiraishi A. Accuracy of the lacrimal syringing test in relation to dacryocystography and Dacryoendoscopy. Clin Ophthalmol. 2023;Volume 17:1277–1285. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S409662.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanna IT, MacEwen CJ, Kennedy N. Lacrimal scintigraphy in the diagnosis of epiphora. Nucl Med Commun. Jun, 1992;13(6):416–420. doi:10.1097/00006231-199206000-00040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohgiya Y, Hashimoto T, Gokan T, et al. Dynamic MRI for distinguishing high-flow from low-flow peripheral vascular malformations. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(5):1131–1137. doi: 10.2214/AJR.04.1508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kato H, Kanematsu M, Mizuta K, et al. “Flow-void” sign at MR imaging: a rare finding of extracranial head and neck schwannomas. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(3):703–705. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22071.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lisanti C, Carlin C, Banks KP, Wang D. Normal MRI appearance and motion-related phenomena of CSF. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(3):716–725. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.0003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley WG Jr. Carmen lecture. Flow phenomena in MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. May, 1988;150(5):983–994. doi:10.2214/ajr.150.5.983.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar