BACKGROUND: This diagnostic study aimed to assess degree of agreement between dacryoscintigraphy and dacryocystography as supporting examinations in patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO). Patients with PANDO who complained of epiphora and visited our outpatient clinic were subsequently sent for dacryoscintigraphy and dacryocystography examinations. Side effects and convenience of both examinations were assessed by observation and questionnaire. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Through irrigation and probing, there were 47 out of 62 eyes were found with PANDO. As much as 87.1% subjects were female, with mostly (74.2%) aged > 40 years old. With dacryoscintigraphy, time needed to reach sac was 0 minutes, 5 minutes (duct), and 12.5 minutes (nasal cavity). RESULTS: Degree of agreement between both examinations was 83.8% to determine obstruction and 70.9% to locate obstruction. There were 22 subjects complained about pain in dacryocystography examination while none with dacryoscintigraphy (p < 0.005). Sixteen subjects feel dacryoscintigraphy examination was more convenient, eleven subjects feel dacryocystohraphy was more convenient, while 4 subjects feel the two examinations were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Even though dacryocystography examination was considered more painful than dacryoscintigraphy, both examinations had high convenience level for patients. Dacryoscintigraphy and dacryocystography also had a good agreement in detecting and locating obstruction in PANDO.
- nasolacrimal duct obstruction