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

JOSEPH AMDUR, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1964;71(1):71-72.

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

Reconstruction of lacrimal drainage remains a problem in spite of refinements in surgical technique. Frequent failures can be expected in canalicular repair¹: reanastomosis of the lacrimal sac to nasal mucosa; comminuted fractures of the medial canthal region; and tumor involvement of the medial one third of the lower eyelid. When the ensuing tearing is excessive in such conditions, various methods of reconstructing lacrimal drainage have been recommended.^2-7 Results with these generally have been inconsistent.^8,9

In 1937, Jameson¹⁰ attacked the problem by dividing the secretory ductules of the palpebral lacrimal gland. Experience with this procedure usually results in undercorrection of the epiphora.

In 1952, Duke-Elder¹¹ summarized experience with excision of either lobe of the lacrimal gland:

"Excision of the lacrimal gland, or, which amounts to the same thing, of the palpebral lobe, in the great majority of cases has no serious ill-effects. Sufficient lubrication being obtained . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Miami, Fla

Clinical Instructor, Plastic Surgery Clinic, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami, School of Medicine.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication Feb 25, 1963.

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