ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical characteristics and management of lacrimal gland ductal disease, a rare disease often mistaken for other diseases. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 11 patients (11 eyes, 5 males, 6 females) diagnosed with lacrimal ductal disease between March 2007 and April 2013 was performed. RESULTS: Among 11 eyes in 11 patients, 4 were diagnosed with dacryops and 7 with lacrimal gland ductulitis initiated by dacryolith. The mean age of the subjects was 47.9 years (range, 30-80 years). Lacrimal gland ductulitis patients received treatment for conjunctivitis or hordeolum for several months. Four cases involved the right eye and 7 cases involved the left eye. Symptoms included foreign body sensation, pus-like discharge and palpable mass. Biopsy was performed in 3 cases and showed no specific findings. Patients with dacryops underwent marsupialization, whereas patients diagnosed with lacrimal gland ductulitis underwent excision and dacryolith curettage. During the 2-month follow-up period, all cases showed no signs of recurrence or complications. CONCLUSIONS: Lacrimal gland ductal disease can be mistaken for other diseases such as conjunctivitis, hordeolum, or orbital cyst, thus requiring accurate diagnosis and appropriate management.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Biopsy , Conjunctivitis , Curettage , Diagnosis , Follow-Up Studies , Foreign Bodies , Hordeolum , Lacrimal Apparatus , Orbit , Rare Diseases , Recurrence , Retrospective Studies , SensationABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Lacrimal gland duct cysts constitute a rare clinical entity and may be preceded by trauma, infection, or inflammation without antecedent history. The purpose of this study is to report one case of lacrimal gland duct cyst accompanied by a dacryolith. METHODS: A 41-year-old man presented with sudden enlarging mass in the left superotemporal conjunctival fornix 3 days ago. The lesion was about 10 X 10 mm in size. There was no tenderness or erythema in adjacent area. The CT scan was done and excisional biopsy was performed under local anesthesia. RESULTS: Specimen consisted of cystic membranous tissue in 9.0 X 7.0 mm in size and mucous material and a light brown dacryolith of 1mm in diameter within cyst. Specimen included normal lacrimal tissue. Microscopic examination found cyst was covered with stratified columnal epithelium accompanied by acute and chronic inflammation and eosinophilic acellular dacryolith mixed with inflammatory exudates. There was no bacterial colony and polarizing microscope found no birefringence. CONCLUSIONS: Such case of a eosinophilic dacryolith within lacrimal gland duct cyst has never been reported at home and abroad.