4.5 Review

Etiopathogenesis of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO)

Journal

PROGRESS IN RETINAL AND EYE RESEARCH
Volume 96, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2023.101193

Keywords

PANDO; Nasolacrimal duct obstruction; Tears; Etiopathogenesis; Lacrimal; lacriome

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO) is a common lacrimal drainage disorder in adults. The current treatment of dacryocystorhinostomy has excellent outcomes, but the understanding of the disease etiopathogenesis needs further study.
Primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction, or PANDO, is a common adult lacrimal drainage disorder. The current treatment modality of dacryocystorhinostomy to bypass the obstructed nasolacrimal duct has excellent outcomes. However, the understanding of the disease etiopathogenesis needs to be revisited. There are not many studies that specifically assessed any hypothesis or ones that convincingly put forth the presumed or confirmed interpretations regarding the PANDO pathogenesis or the mechanisms or pathways involved therein. Histo-pathological evidence points to recurrent inflammation of the nasolacrimal duct, subsequent fibrosis, and the resultant obstruction. The disease etiopathogenesis is considered multifactorial. Several implicated suspects include anatomical narrowing of the bony nasolacrimal duct, vascular factors, local hormonal imbalance, mi-crobial influence, nasal abnormalities, autonomic dysregulation, surfactants, lysosomal dysfunction, gastro-esophageal reflux, tear proteins, and deranged local host defenses. The present work reviewed the literature on the etiopathogenesis of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO) to gain insights into the present state of the understanding and the high-value translational implications of precisely decoding the disease etiology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available