This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (17)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

MARTIN P. KOKE, M.D.

Arch Ophthal. 1950;43(4):750-754.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

THE TREATMENT of occluded nasolacrimal ducts in infants apparently needs more discussion, for within sixty days the ARCHIVES published two articles advocating diametrically opposed managements of the condition. A brief résumé of these papers should recall the pertinent facts and disagreements on the subject.

Guerry and Kendig¹ reviewed the literature. They found that most of the papers referred to the condition as congenital dacryocystitis or dacryostenosis and suggested that the malady be called congenital impatency of the nasolacrimal duct with or without dacryocystitis. In a study of 200 consecutive, unselected newborn infants, these authors found 12 with congenital "impatency," as manifested by epiphora and the presence of mucopus after pressure over the affected sac. The condition in these 12 patients was treated by the application of penicillin ointment and daily massage by the mother. The average duration of symptoms after the beginning of treatment was 2.3 months. After the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

Footnotes
Read at a meeting of the Pacific Coast Oto-Ophthalmological Society in April 1949.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?