Are Osteomeatal Complex Variations Related to Nasolacrimal Canal Morphometry?

Document Type : Original

Authors

1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

3 Oral and Dental Disease Research Center, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction:
Due to the close anatomic relationship between paranasal structures and NLC, the morphometric measure of the nasolacrimal canal (NLC) could be affected by the osteomeatal complex (OMC) anatomical variations. The present study aimed to assess the effect of OMC variations on the NLC morphometric features using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
 
Materials and Methods:                                                                                
This cross-sectional study consisted of CBCT images of 150 subjects in the case group with at least one OMC variation and 40 cases in the control group without any OMC variation within the age range of 18-50 years. The presence of the OMC variations, including agger nasi, nasal septum deviation, concha bullosa, Haller cells, paradoxical middle turbinate, and pneumatization of the uncinate process, was evaluated in each patient. The NLC morphometric measurements were performed and compared between the case and control groups.
 
Results:
The middle anteroposterior diameter and middle sectional area of NCL were significantly higher in patients with OMC variations, as compared to that in the control group. The NLC volume was significantly higher in patients with agger nasi, nasal septum deviation, concha bullosa, and pneumatization of the uncinate process, as compared to that in the control group. Nonetheless, no significant difference in NLC angulation with the nasal floor or Frankfurt horizontal plane was observed in the presence of each OMC variation.
Conclusions:
As evidenced by the obtained results, a higher volume of the canal was revealed in the presence of some of the OMC variations. Therefore, it can be suggested that OMC variations cannot be a predisposing factor in cases with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Keywords

References

  1. Okumuş Ö. Investıgatıon of the morphometrıc features of bony nasolacrımal canal: a cone beam computed tomography study. Folia morphologica. 2019.
  2. Janssen AG, Mansour K, Bos JJ, Castelijns JA. Diameter of the bony lacrimal canal: normal values and values related to nasolacrimal duct obstruction: assessment with CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22(5):845-50.
  3. Shigeta K-i, Takegoshi H, Kikuchi S. Sex and age differences in the bony nasolacrimal canal: an anatomical study. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2007;125(12):1677-81.
  4. Takahashi Y, Kakizaki H, Nakano T. Bony nasolacrimal duct entrance diameter: gender difference in cadaveric study. Ophthalmic Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 2011;27(3):204-5.
  5. Habesoglu M, Eriman M, Habesoglu TE, Kinis V, Surmeli M, Deveci I, et al. Co-occurrence and possible role of sinonasal anomalies in primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. 2013;24(2):497-500.
  6. Kallman JE, Foster JA, Wulc AE, Yousem DM, Kennedy DW. Computed tomography in lacrimal outflow obstruction. Ophthalmology. 1997;104(4):676-82.
  7. Singh S, Alam MS, Ali MJ, Naik MN. Endoscopic intranasal findings in unilateral primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Saudi journal of ophthalmology. 2017;31(3):128-30.
  8. Taban M, Jarullazada I, Mancini R, Hwang C, Goldberg RA. Facial asymmetry and nasal septal deviation in acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Orbit. 2011;30(5):226-9.
  9. Stammberger HR, Kennedy DW. Paranasal sinuses: anatomic terminology and nomenclature. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology. 1995;104(10_suppl):7-16.
  10. Onwuchekwa RC, Alazigha N. Computed tomography anatomy of the paranasal sinuses and anatomical variants of clinical relevants in Nigerian adults. Egyptian Journal of Ear, Nose, Throat and Allied Sciences. 2017;18(1):31-8.
  11. Aramani A, Karadi R, Kumar S. A study of anatomical variations of osteomeatal complex in chronic rhinosinusitis patients-CT findings. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2014;8(10):KC01.
  12. Bandyopadhyay R, Biswas R, Bhattacherjee S, Pandit N, Ghosh S. Osteomeatal Complex: A Study of Its Anatomical Variation Among Patients Attending North Bengal Medical College and Hospital. Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India. 2015;67(3):281-6.
  13. Dammann F. Bildgebung der Nasennebenhöhlen (NNH) in der heutigen Zeit. Der Radiologe. 2007;47(7):576-83.
  14. Kolsuz ME, Bilecenoğlu B, Kurt MH, Bozkurt P, Orhan K. Morphometric Evaluation of Nasolacrimal Canal Diameters Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Cross-Sectional Study. Turkiye Klinikleri Dishekimligi Bilimleri Dergisi. 2019;25(2):169-74.
  15. Kaplan M, Sahin E, Gürsel AO. Examination of lateral nasal wall pathologies associated with distal lacrimal duct obstruction. ENT Updates. 2015;5(2):68.
  16. Yazici H, Bulbul E, Yazici A, Kaymakci M, Tiskaoglu N, Yanik B, et al. Primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction: is it really related to paranasal abnormalities? 2015;37(6):579-84.
  17. Dikici O, Ulutas HG. Relationship Between Primary Acquired Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction, Paranasal Abnormalities and Nasal Septal Deviation. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2019.
  18. Sirik M, Inan I. Evaluation of the relationship between concha bullosa and nasal septum deviation with diameter of nasolacrimal duct. Annals of Medical Research. 2019;26(2):209-12.
  19. Ramey NA, Hoang JK, Richard MJJOP, Surgery R. Multidetector CT of nasolacrimal canal morphology: normal variation by age, gender, and race. 2013;29(6):475-80.
  20. Altun O, Dedeoglu N, Avci M. Examination of Nasolacrimal Duct Morphometry Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip/Palate. The Journal of craniofacial surgery. 2017;28(8):e725-e8.
  21. Ela AS, Cigdem KE, Karagoz Y, Yigit O, Longur ES. Morphometric Measurements of Bony Nasolacrimal Canal in Children. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(3):e282-e7.
  22. de Lima FVF, Brandao Martins MB, de Jesus EPF, Granizo Santos AC, Prado Barreto VM, Santos Junior RC. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: our experience and literature review. Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia. 2013;72(4).
  23. Ali MJ, Naik MN, Honavar SG. External dacryocystorhinostomy: Tips and tricks. Oman journal of ophthalmology. 2012;5(3):191.
  24. Garg RK, Hartman MJ, Lucarelli MJ, Leverson G, Afifi AM, Gentry LR. Nasolacrimal system fractures: a description of radiologic findings and associated outcomes. Annals of plastic surgery. 2015; 75(4):407-13.
  25. Vojniković B, Bajek S, Bajek G, Braut T. The importance of anatomical topography in nasolacrimal duct stenosis. Collegium antropologicum. 2014;38(4):1107-10.
  26. Imre A, Imre SS, Pinar E, Ozkul Y, Songu M, Ece AA, et al. Transection of nasolacrimal duct in endoscopic medial maxillectomy: implication on epiphora. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2015; 26(7): e616-e9.
  27. Janssen AG, Mansour K, Bos JJ, Castelijns JA. Diameter of the bony lacrimal canal: normal values and values related to nasolacrimal duct obstruction: assessment with CT. American journal of neuroradiology. 2001;22(5):845-50.
  28. McCormick A, Sloan BJC, ophthalmology e. The diameter of the nasolacrimal canal measured by computed tomography: gender and racial differences. 2009;37(4):357-61.

 

  1. Gray LP. Relationship of septal deformity to snuffly noses, poor feeding, sticky eyes and blocked naso-lacrimal ducts. International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology. 1980;2(3):201-15.
  2. Samarei R, Samarei V, Aidenloo NS, Fateh N. Sinonasal anatomical variations and primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction: A single centre, case-control investigation. The Eurasian journal of medicine. 2020;52(1):21.
  3. Behboudi H, Heirati A, Behboudi H, Akbari M, Ramezani N, Shalchizadeh M, et al. Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction and Frequency of Agger Nasi Cell and other Anatomical Field Variations: A Controlled Study in Northern Iran. Acta Medica Iranica. 2021;59(4).
  4. Kaplama ME, Ak S, Doblan A. Primary Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy: Concomitant Sinonasal Pathologies, Either Cause of Disease/or Cause of Recurrence. Allergy. 2020;3(3):59-63.
  5. Kelley BP, Downey CR, Stal S, editors. Evaluation and reduction of nasal trauma. Seminars in plastic surgery; 2010: © Thieme Medical Publishers.
  6. de Oliveira AKP, Júnior EE, dos Santos LV, Bettega SG, Mocellin M. Prevalence of Deviated Nasal Septum in Curitiba, Brazil Prevalência do Desvio de Septo Nasal em Curitiba, Brasil. 2005.
Iranian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
Volume 34, Issue 1
January and February 2022
Pages 17-26

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics