Probing for Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction Using Intranasal Midazolam Sedation as an Alternative to General Anesthesia

Levent Karabaş, Orhan Elibol, Nurşen Yüksel, Yavuz Gürkan, Özgül Altıntaş, Yusuf Çağlar

Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus · 2006 · 11 citations · 23 references

Concepts

Abstract

Abstract Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of topical anesthesia with sedation using intranasal midazolam in patients with symptomatic congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction undergoing probing. Patiente and Methods: In this prospective study, probing was performed with general anesthesia (30 cases) and with topical anesthesia using intranasal midazolam (0.3 mg/kg; 44 cases) in 74 patients who were divided into two groups, those 6 to 36 months old and those older than 36 months. The groups were compared after 12 to 48 months (mean, 18.2 months). Resulte: For the patients 6 to 36 months old, the success rate was 80% in the group who received general anesthesia and 88.9% in the group who received topical anesthesia with intranasal midazolam; the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P > .05). For the patients older than 36 months, the success rate was 20% in the group who received general anesthesia and 25% in the group who received topical anesthesia with intranasal midazolam; there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>.05). Conclusions: Probing with topical anesthesia in the office setting is usually recommended for patients younger than 8 months. Our results show that this is suitable for children until 4 years of age with the support of intranasal midazolam sedation. Probing under topical anesthesia with intranasal midazolam is cost-effective, safe, and comparable in efficacy to probing under general anesthesia but with less risk.

References

23