PURPOSE: Isolated cases of nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) secondary to rhino‑orbito‑facial reconstructive surgeries have been reported previously. We report the clinical profiles and management outcomes of a series of patients with iatrogenic INDO. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Case records of all patients who presented with secondary NLDO over 5 years were retrospectively analyzed. The case series included seven patients with NLDO secondary to orbito‑facial surgeries. RESULTS: The study included six males and one female patient with a mean age of 29 ± 12.58 years. All the patients had a history of road traffic accidents following which they underwent an open reduction and internal fixation by maxilla‑facial surgeons. All of them presented to the Ophthalmology outpatient department with epiphora following the surgical intervention. Imaging revealed the implants were responsible for obstructing the nasolacrimal ducts in all seven cases. Five patients underwent external dacryocystorhinostomy while dacryocystectomy was performed in two. Implant removal was necessary for five patients without any compromise on the structural integrity of the orbital walls. CONCLUSION: Precise knowledge of the orbital anatomy, especially that of the lacrimal drainage system is imperative for surgeons performing surgeries in the midface area. A multidisciplinary approach and inclusion of surgeons trained in lacrimal surgeries can prevent such avoidable complications.

PURPOSE: Isolated cases of nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) secondary to rhino‑orbito‑facial reconstructive surgeries have been reported previously. We report the clinical profiles and management outcomes of a series of patients with iatrogenic INDO. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Case records of all...