Imaging Modalities for Lacrimal Disorders



Disorders of the lacrimal system are not uncommon. The spectrum of disease varies from congenital absence or aberrant anlage to acquired stenosis and obstructions of adult onset. Primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction with associated infection is relatively common, whereas certain other disorders such as primary sac and duct tumors are very rare. Radiologic evaluation of the lacrimal system has evolved over the past decades to include a variety of studies ranging from plain dacryocystography (Fig. 10.1) to digital subtraction dacryocystography (DCG), nuclear medicine isotope studies (dacryoscintigraphy (DSG)), lacrimal ultrasonography (USG), computed tomography (CT), combined CT-DCG, and magnetic resonance imaging DCG (MR-DCG) [1]. Technological advances and enhanced imaging processing has allowed development of techniques that provide three-dimensional visualization of the nasolacrimal duct system.


Nasolacrimal Duct Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction Lacrimal System Lacrimal Drainage System Coronal Reformat Image 


  1. 1.
    Mahesh L. Imaging in lacrimal surgery. In: Isloor S, editor. Lacrimal drainage surgery. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers; 2014. p. 17–22.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Galloway JE, Kavie TA, Raflo GT. Digital subtraction macrodacryocystography: a new method of lacrimal system imaging. Ophthalmology. 1984;91:956–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kousoubris PD. Radiological evaluation of lacrimal and orbital disease. In: Woog JJ, editor. Endoscopic lacrimal and orbital surgery. 1st ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Hienemann; 2004. p. 79–104.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Priebe M, Mohr A, Brossman J, et al. Gadobutrol: an alternative contrast agent for digital subtraction dacryocystography. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2083–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walther EK, Herberhold C, Lippel R. Digital subtraction dacryocystography (DS-DCG) and evaluation of results of endonasal lacrimal duct surgery. Laryngorhinootologie. 1994;73:609–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lefebvre DR, Freitag SR. Update on imaging of the lacrimal drainage system. Surv Ophthalmol. 2012;27:175–86.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rossomondo RM, Carlton WH, Trueblood JH, et al. A new method of evaluating lacrimal drainage. Arch Ophthalmol. 1972;88:523–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hurwitz JJ, Maisey MN, Welham RAN. Quantitative lacrimal scintillography. Br J Ophthalmol. 1975;59:313–22.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sagili S, Selva D, Malhotra R. Lacrimal scintigraphy: interpretation more art than science. Orbit. 2012;31:77–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oksala A. Diagnosis by ultrasound in acute dacryocystitis. Acta Ophthalmol. 1959;37:176–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Al-Faky YH. Anatomical utility of ultrasound biomicroscopy in the lacrimal drainage system. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95:1446–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ezra E, Restori M, Mannor GE. Ultrasonic assessment of rhinostomy size following external dacryocystorhinostomy. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:786–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Al-Faky YH. Physiological utility of ultrasound biomicroscopy in the lacrimal drainage system. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:1325–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frietag SK, Woog JJ, Kousoubris PD, et al. Helical computed tomographic dacryocystography with three-dimensional reconstruction: a new view of lacrimal drainage system. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;18:121–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ashenhurst M, Jaffer N, Hurwitz JJ, et al. Combined computed tomography and dacryocystography for complex lacrimal problems. Can J Ophthalmol. 1991;26:27–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Udhay P, Noronha OV, Mohan RE. Helical computed tomographic dacryosystography and its role in the diagnosis and management of lacrimal drainage system blocks and medial canthal masses. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008;56:31–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hurwitz JJ, Edward Kassel EE, Jaffer N. Computed tomography and combined CT-dacryocystography (CT-DCG). In: Hurwitz JJ, editor. The lacrimal system. New York: Raven Press; 1996. p. 83–5.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldberg RA, Hienz GW, Chiu L. Gadolinium magnetic resonance imaging dacryocystography. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;115:738–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coskun B, Ilgit E, Onal B, et al. Magnetic resonance dacryocystography in evaluation of patients with obstructive epiphora treated by means of interventional radiological procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33:141–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Manfre L, de Maria M, Todaro E, et al. Magnetic resonance dacryocystography: comparison with dacryocystography and CT-dacryocystography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21:1145–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cubuk R, Tasali N, Aydin S, et al. Dynamic MR dacryocystography in patients with epiphora. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73:230–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Amrit S, Goh PS, Wang SC. Tear flow dynamics in human nasolacrimal ducts: a pilot study using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243:127–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyManipal HospitalBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Dacryology ServiceL.V. Prasad Eye InstituteBanjara Hills, HyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations