I appreciate and thank Dr Bajaj and colleagues for the interest expressed regard to my paper on probing for congenital NLD obstruction in children older than 13 months of age.1 The point raised regards further splitting of the children in Group 2 is very valid and would definitely help in understanding the success rate in various age categories. However, as the maximum children in this group were between 24 to 48 months, further subdivision for very old children aged 48 months and above were not done as this would have left with a small number, which would not have been statistically significant to evaluate the result in them. Regards to the success of probing, I would like to stress that it is the type of obstruction which probably determines the success of probing and not the age and it might be possible that it is the more occurrence of complex obstruction in older children which might be the cause for poor success in them.
With regards to the second query, I would like to clarify that any intraoperative rhinology examination was not performed in any of the patients. Intraoperative endoscopic examination would be of more benefit as rightly suggested in cases of failed probing to rule out any obvious nasal pathology.
1. Maheshwari R. Results of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children older than 13 months of age Indian J Ophthalmol. 2005;53:49–51