Standardized Lacrimal Sac Massage vs Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Infants: A - Takeaways - MDSpire
Coming Soon: Introducing MDSpire News. Learn more
Conexiant’s news site is now MDSpire News. Learn more

Comparative Effectiveness of Standardized Lacrimal Sac Massage and Probing in Treating Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Infants

  • By

  • Xinyu Zheng

  • Xinyue Yu

  • Guangsen Wu

  • Jiayi Zhang

  • Kerui Wang

  • Ling Jin

  • Siyu Huang

  • Rongxin Chen

  • Huiying Yu

  • Weifeng Huang

  • Zuohong Li

  • Xuanwei Liang

  • September 1, 2026

Share

  • 1

    Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) affects 5% to 20% of infants, with spontaneous resolution decreasing from 95% to 32% as age increases.

  • 2

    Lacrimal probing is effective but invasive, carrying risks such as trauma and infection, while lacrimal sac massage is noninvasive and cost-effective.

  • 3

    This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy of lacrimal sac massage and lacrimal duct probing in treating CNLDO in infants.

  • 4

    Participants underwent block randomization and received standardized training for lacrimal sac massage, while probing was performed under topical anesthesia.

  • 5

    The primary efficacy endpoint was the resolution rate at 3 months, defined as substantial improvement of epiphora without purulent discharge.

Original Source(s)

Related Content