Radiation-Induced Acquired Lacrimal Drainage Obstructions: Management and Outcomes.

Objective: To describe the management and outcomes of patients with radiation-induced acquired lacrimal duct obstructions (RALDO).

Methods: A retrospective chart review from July 2018 to December 2023 of all cases undergoing surgical intervention for RALDO by a single surgeon. Data collected included demographics, tumor type and anatomic location, radiation treatment (including radiation type, dosage, and duration), interval between radiation and reported onset of epiphora, oculoplastic clinical examination, management, and outcomes. Lacrimal irrigation was done prior to surgery in all patients.

Results: Seventeen eyes of 16 patients with a mean age at presentation of 63.3 years and over half the patients being females (56.3%) were included in the study. The right lacrimal drainage system (LDS) was involved in 4 (23.6%), and the left side was involved in 13 (76.4%). The mean onset of epiphora symptoms after radiation was 9.5 months. The underlying tumor type were intraocular having uveal melanoma in four, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in 2, basal cell carcinoma involving forehead and nose in one and sino-nasal indications present in 8 patients. One patient had metastasis to the orbit and eyelid. Four patients (25%) received external beam radiotherapy (XRT) (one case had bilateral LDS involvement), 6 patients (37.5%) received intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), 5 patients (31.25%) received proton beam irradiation (PBI), and one (6.25%) received stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Mean radiation dosage was 61.31 Gy in 15 patients (data was missing in 1 patient). Punctum was effaced in 3, canalicular stenosis in 1, proximal canalicular obstruction in 8, distal canalicular obstruction in 2, and nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) in 3. Treatment was based on the site and nature of obstruction and varied from minimally invasive techniques like serial dilatation with bicanalicular silicone tube or Guibor tube to surgical interventions like dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) or conjunctivo-dacryocystorhinostomy (C-DCR). Only 10% with primary lacrimal intubation had good response. Of the six cases that underwent C-DCR with Jones tube either as primary or secondary procedure, four cases showed improvement in epiphora (67%). Three with NLDO did well after external DCR. In total, four patients had a secondary procedure after the first failed while 7 with failed initial surgery elected against secondary surgery. The mean follow-up was 9.6 months (range 2-24 months).

Conclusions: In patients with RALDO, salvage treatment with silicone lacrimal intubation has poor results, CDCR with Jones tube has better results, although imperfect and in cases with NLDO, DCR has good outcomes.