Comparison of the Efficacies of 0.94 mm and Double Silicone Tubes for Treatment of Canalicular Obstruction
2
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: To compare the clinical effects of the single wide-diameter bicanalicular silicone tube and the doublebicanalicular silicone tube in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) with canalicular trephinization for canalicularobstruction. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 121 patients with monocanalicular or common canalicularobstruction who had undergone endonasal DCR with random bicanalicular insertion of either double siliconetubes (insertion of two tubes into each canaliculus) or a single wide-diameter (0.94 mm) silicone tube. Thetubes were removed at around 3 months after surgery. Results: This study included 79 eyes of 61 patients in the double-tube intubation group and 68 eyes of 60 patientsin the single wide-diameter tube intubation group. Anatomical success, evaluated by syringing, wasachieved in 72 of the 79 eyes (91.1%) in the double-tube intubation group and 60 of the 68 eyes (88.2%) in thesingle wide-diameter tube intubation group. Functional success was achieved in 65 of the 79 eyes (82.3%)in the double-tube intubation group and 61 of the 68 (89.7%) eyes in the single wide-diameter tube intubationgroup. There were no significant differences in the success rates of surgery between the two groups. One patientin the double-tube intubation group underwent conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy (CDCR) and two in thewide-diameter tube intubation group underwent CDCR or reintubation to treat recurrence. Conclusions: Intubation using a single wide-diameter tube during endonasal DCR is as effective as double-tubeintubation for the treatment of canalicular obstruction, with a lower rate of complications such as inflammationor patient discomfort.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the clinical effects of the single wide-diameter bicanalicular silicone tube and the doublebicanalicular silicone tube in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) with canalicular trephinization for canalicularobstruction. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 121 patients with monocanalicular or common canalicularobstruction who had undergone endonasal DCR with random bicanalicular insertion of either double siliconetubes (insertion of two tubes into each canaliculus) or a single wide-diameter (0.94 mm) silicone tube. Thetubes were removed at around 3 months after surgery. Results: This study included 79 eyes of 61 patients in the double-tube intubation group and 68 eyes of 60 patientsin the single wide-diameter tube intubation group. Anatomical success, evaluated by syringing, wasachieved in 72 of the 79 eyes (91.1%) in the double-tube intubation group and 60 of the 68 eyes (88.2%) in thesingle wide-diameter tube intubation group. Functional success was achieved in 65 of the 79 eyes (82.3%)in the double-tube intubation group and 61 of the 68 (89.7%) eyes in the single wide-diameter tube intubationgroup. There were no significant differences in the success rates of surgery between the two groups. One patientin the double-tube intubation group underwent conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy (CDCR) and two in thewide-diameter tube intubation group underwent CDCR or reintubation to treat recurrence. Conclusions: Intubation using a single wide-diameter tube during endonasal DCR is as effective as double-tubeintubation for the treatment of canalicular obstruction, with a lower rate of complications such as inflammationor patient discomfort.
참고문헌 (14)
- Bartley GB, "Complications of malpositioned Jones tubes", Am J Ophthalmol, 109, pp.66~69 (1990)
- Hurwitz JJ, "A new, wider-diameter Crawford tube for stenting in the lacrimal drainage system", Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg, 20, pp.40~43 (2004)
- Crawford JS, "Intubation of obstructions in the lacrimal system", Can J Ophthalmol, 12, pp.289~292 (1977)
- Inatani M, "Direct silicone intubation using Nunchaku-style tube (NST-DSI) to treat lacrimal passage obstruction", Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 78, pp.689~693 (2000)
- Lauring L, "Silicone intubation of the lacrimal system: pitfalls, problems and complications", Ann Ophthalmol, 8, pp.489~498 (1976)
- Demirci H, "Double silicone tube intubation for the management of partial lacrimal system obstruction", Ophthalmology, 115, pp.383~385 (2008)
- Hwang SW, "Bicanalicular double silicone intubation in external dacryocystorhinostomy and canaliculoplasty for distal canalicular obstruction", Acta Ophthalmol, 87, pp.438~442 (2009)
- Kashkouli MB, "Assessment and management of proximal and incomplete symptomatic obstruction of the lacrimal drainage system", Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol, 19, pp.60~69 (2012)
- 김세종, "공통눈물소관 폐쇄에서 두 개의 실리콘관을 삽입한 코경유 눈물주머니코안연결술의 수술 결과", 대한안과학회지, 48(9), pp.1170~1176 (2007), 대한안과학회
- Yildiz M, "A new and simple silicone intubation method for dacryocystorhinostomy", Eur J Gen Med, 8, pp.36~39 (2011)
- Munk PL, "Epiphora: treatment by means of dacryocystoplasty with balloon dilation of the nasolacrimal drainage apparatus", Radiology, 177, pp.687~690 (1990)
- Liarakos VS, "Management of canalicular obstructions", Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 20, pp.395~400 (2009)
- Kurihashi K, "Bicanalicular silicone intubation using threepiece silicone tubing: direct silicone intubation", Ophthalmologica, 206, pp.57~68 (1993)
- Paik JS, "Bicanalicular double silicone stenting in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with lacrimal trephination in distal or common canalicular obstruction", Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 269, pp.1605~1611 (2012)