Non-contrast MR dacryocystography for the evaluation of epiphora and recurrent dacryocystitis: A preliminary study.

INTRODUCTION: Obstruction of the lacrimal drainage represents a common ophthalmologic issue. The blockage may interest any level of the lacrimal drainage pathway, and it is important to find the site of obstruction to plan the most appropriate treatment. In this study, findings from magnetic resonance (MR) dacryocystography were compared with findings from endoscopic and surgical procedures to evaluate the accuracy of MR dacryocystography in localizing the site of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. METHODS: We enrolled twenty-one patients with clinical suspicion of nasolacrimal duct obstruction who underwent dacryoendoscopy and surgery. MR dacryocystography was performed with a heavily T2-weighted fast spin echo sequence in the coronal planes. Before the MRI was performed, a sterile 0.9% NaCl solution was administered into both conjunctival sacs. For each examination, two independent readers (with 8 and 10 years of experience in head and neck imaging) evaluated both heavily 3D space T2-weighted and STIR sequences. RESULTS: Stenosis/obstruction of nasolacrimal duct or lacrimal sac was diagnosed in all 21 patients who underwent MRI dacryocystography. In particular, the site of the obstruction was classified as lacrimal sac in 12 (57%) patients, nasolacrimal duct in 6 (29%) patients, and canaliculi in 3 (14%) patients by both readers. By comparison with the evidence resulting from the endoscopy, there were differences between MRI dacryocystography and dacryoendoscopy in the evaluation of the obstruction's site in three patients, with an overall accuracy of 85.7%. CONCLUSION: MR dacryocystography allows a non-invasive evaluation of the lacrimal drainage pathway, valid for the planning of the most appropriate treatment.

Cochlear implantation in adults with auditory deprivation: What do we know about it?

INTRODUCTION: In the ENT community, auditory deprivation is frequently considered as a negative prognostic factor for a good hearing outcome of cochlear implantation (CI), even if a growing literature suggests that this is not completely true. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the results of CI in patients with hearing deprivation, to compare them to results from non-deprived patients and then estimate how time of deprivation impacts on CI outcome and how a bilateral deprivation can affect the outcome compared to a unilateral deprivation. METHODS: Seventy-eight adults with severe to profound post-verbal hearing loss, with and without auditory deprivation history, received CI; audiological results obtained at 3-6-12-24 months follow up post CI were analyzed. RESULTS: No differences were founded between patients with unilateral deprivation and patients with no deprivation. Patients with bilateral deprivation seem to have a worse hearing outcome compared to that of those patients with unilateral deprivation or no deprivation at all. Long time deprivation (>15 years) seems to have a negative influence on the hearing outcome but results with CI remain excellent. CONCLUSIONS: Auditory deprivation should not be considered a contraindication to CI. The duration of auditory deprivation in the implanted ear seems to be a negative prognostic factor only for ears deprived from more of 15 years.