Upregulation of inflammatory genes in the nasal mucosa of patients undergoing endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy

Elina Penttilä, Juha Mt Hyttinen, Maria Hytti, Anu Kauppinen, Grigori Smirnov, Henri Tuomilehto, Juha Seppä, Juhani Nuutinen, Kai Kaarniranta, Elina Penttilä, Juha Mt Hyttinen, Maria Hytti, Anu Kauppinen, Grigori Smirnov, Henri Tuomilehto, Juha Seppä, Juhani Nuutinen, Kai Kaarniranta

Abstract

Background: Epiphora is a common complaint of nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) in adults. The precise pathogenesis of NLDO is still unknown, but inflammatory processes are believed to be predisposing factors. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (EN-DCR) is an effective surgical technique for treating symptomatic NLDO. The purpose of the procedure is to relieve the patient's symptoms by creating an opening, ie, a rhinostoma, between the lacrimal sac and the nasal cavity. Although the success rates after EN-DCR are high, the procedure sometimes fails due to onset of a fibrotic process at the rhinostomy site. The aim of this prospective comparative study was to investigate inflammation-related gene expression in the nasal mucosa at the rhinostomy site.

Methods: Ten participants were consecutively recruited from eligible adult patients who underwent primary powered EN-DCR (five patients) or septoplasty (five controls). Nasal mucosa specimens were taken from the rhinostomy site at the beginning of surgery for analysis of gene expression. Specimens were taken from the same site on the lateral nasal wall for controls. Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) was performed for the inflammatory genes interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1β, and CCL2, and because of a clear trend of increased inflammation in the EN-DCR samples, a wider PCR array was performed to compare inflammation-related gene expression in EN-DCR subjects and corresponding controls.

Results: Our qRT-PCR results revealed a clear trend of increased transcription of IL-6, IL-1β, and CCL2 (P=0.03). The same trend was also evident in the PCR array, which additionally revealed notable differences between EN-DCR subjects and controls with regard to expression of several other inflammation-related mediators. At 6-month follow-up, the success rate after primary EN-DCR was 60%, ie, in three of five patients.

Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that there is an intense inflammation gene expression response in the nasal mucosa of patients undergoing EN-DCR.

Keywords: dacryocystorhinostomy; epiphora; fibrosis; gene expression; inflammation; nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Excessive granulation formation over the hinostomy site. Abbreviations: G, granulation; LNW, lateral nasal wall; MT, middle turbinate; S, septum.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Expression of IL-6, IL-1β, and CCL2 mRNA in tissue samples of subjects undergoing either septoplasty (control) or EN-DCR surgery. Notes: The analysis was performed with qRT-PCR. Results are shown as mean ± SEM of five individual samples, and four parallel measurements were performed from each sample. *P<0.05, ns = not significant, Mann–Whitney U-test. Abbreviations:IL, interleukin; mRNA, messenger RNA; EN-DCR, endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy; qRT-PCR, quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; SEM, standard error of the mean; CCL2, chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 2.

References

    1. Bartley GB. Acquired lacrimal drainage obstruction: an etiologic classification system, case reports, and a review of the literature. Part 3. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;9(1):11–26.
    1. Linberg JV, McCormick SA. Primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. A clinicopathologic report and biopsy technique. Ophthalmology. 1986;93(8):1055–1063.
    1. Leong SC, Macewen CJ, White PS. A systematic review of outcomes after dacryocystorhinostomy in adults. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2010;24(1):81–90.
    1. Jokinen K, Karja J. Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Arch Otolaryngol. 1974;100(1):41–44.
    1. Allen KM, Berlin AJ, Levine HL. Intranasal endoscopic analysis of dacrocystorhinostomy failure. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988;4(3):143–145.
    1. Goldberg RA. Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: is it really less successful? Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(1):108–110.
    1. Mauriello JA, Jr, Palydowycz S, DeLuca J. Clinicopathologic study of lacrimal sac and nasal mucosa in 44 patients with complete acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;8(1):13–21.
    1. Paulsen FP, Thale AB, Maune S, et al. New insights into the pathophysiology of primary acquired dacryostenosis. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(12):2329–2336.
    1. Heindl LM, Junemann A, Holbach LM. A clinicopathologic study of nasal mucosa in 350 patients with external dacryocystorhinostomy. Orbit. 2009;28(1):7–11.
    1. Ozer O, Eskiizmir G, Unlu H, et al. Chronic inflammation: a poor prognostic factor for endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;269(3):839–845.
    1. Smirnov G, Pirinen R, Tuomilehto H, et al. Strong expression of HSP47 in metaplastic nasal mucosa may predict a poor outcome after primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: a prospective study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011;89(2):e132–e136.
    1. Taguchi T, Razzaque MS. The collagen-specific molecular chaperone HSP47: is there a role in fibrosis? Trends Mol Med. 2007;13(2):45–53.
    1. Saklad M. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesia. 1941;2:28.
    1. Lund VJ, Mackay IS. Staging in rhinosinusitus. Rhinology. 1993;31(4):183–184.
    1. Smirnov G, Tuomilehto H, Kokki H, et al. Symptom score questionnaire for nasolacrimal duct obstruction in adults – a novel tool to assess the outcome after endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Rhinology. 2010;48(4):446–451.
    1. Smirnov G, Tuomilehto H, Terasvirta M, et al. Silicone tubing after endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: is it necessary? Am J Rhinol. 2006;20(6):600–602.
    1. Winer J, Jung CK, Shackel I, Williams PM. Development and validation of real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction for monitoring gene expression in cardiac myocytes in vitro. Anal Biochem. 1999;270(1):41–49.
    1. Sawa Y, Tsuruga E. The expression of E-selectin and chemokines in the cultured human lymphatic endothelium with lipopolysaccharides. J Anat. 2008;212(5):654–663.
    1. Collins T, Read MA, Neish AS, et al. Transcriptional regulation of endothelial cell adhesion molecules: NF-kappa B and cytokine-inducible enhancers. FASEB J. 1995;9(10):899–909.
    1. Barnes TC, Anderson ME, Moots RJ. The many faces of interleukin-6: the role of IL-6 in inflammation, vasculopathy, and fibrosis in systemic sclerosis. Int J Rheumatol. 2011;2011:721608.
    1. Oikonomou N, Harokopos V, Zalevsky J, et al. Soluble TNF mediates the transition from pulmonary inflammation to fibrosis. PLoS One. 2006;1:e108.
    1. Harada A, Sekido N, Akahoshi T, et al. Essential involvement of interleukin-8 (IL-8) in acute inflammation. J Leukoc Biol. 1994;56(5):559–564.
    1. Howard OM, Dong HF, Shirakawa AK, et al. LEC induces chemotaxis and adhesion by interacting with CCR1 and CCR8. Blood. 2000;96(3):840–845.
    1. Smith DF, Galkina E, Ley K, et al. GRO family chemokines are specialized for monocyte arrest from flow. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2005;289(5):H1976–H1984.
    1. Garcia-Zepeda EA, Combadiere C, Rothenberg ME, et al. Human monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-4 is a novel CC chemokine with activities on monocytes, eosinophils, and basophils induced in allergic and nonallergic inflammation that signals through the CC chemokine receptors (CCR)-2 and -3. J Immunol. 1996;157(12):5613–5626.
    1. Maurer M, von Stebut E. Macrophage inflammatory protein-1. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2004;36(10):1882–1886.
    1. Newton K, Dixit VM. Signaling in innate immunity and inflammation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2012;4(3):pii:a006049.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi