Although the arguments for early and late probing1-8 of the nasolacrimal duct have been waged back and forth for several years, more and more ophthalmologists are adopting early probing as the treatment of choice for dacryocystitis secondary to congenital dacryostenosis in infancy.9,10 It is my belief that this adoption is a relatively slow process because of the voluminous literature and teaching of the past to the effect that early probing is injurious to infantile tear ducts.4,11-15
Evidence is accumulating, however, that the opposite is true and that damage occurs only as a result of temporizing or deferring probing rather than by early probing and, moreover, that early probing, properly performed, is essentially innocuous and a curative procedure.16-27 In order to add further to this evidence, this paper presents a comparison of experiences in series of both early and late probings that I have personally performed.
BROGGI RJ. The Treatment of Congenital Dacryostenosis. AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1959;61(1):30-36. doi:10.1001/archopht.1959.00940090032004