Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Purpose: To compare the success rate of silicone tube intubation using a lacrimal endoscope with that of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in adult acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction with no canalicular obstruction. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional study including 21 patients (31 eyes) treated with silicone tube intubation using lacrimal micro-endoscope and 29 patients (37 eyes) who underwent endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. We examined lacrimal irrigation, probing, and fluorescein dye disappearance before surgery. A total of 3 months after surgery, the silicone tube was removed. The success rates were determined based on symptoms and the results of lacrimal irrigation. Results: For silicone tube intubation in the lacrimal endoscopy group, success rates 3 and 6 months after surgery were 87.1% and 71.0%, respectively. In the endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy group, they were 91.9% and 81.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference in success rates 3 and 6 months after surgery (p = 0.517 and p = 0.327, respectively). However, a significantly higher success rate (81.8%) was observed in the endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy group compared with the silicone tube intubation using lacrimal micro-endoscope group (66.7%) at 6 months after surgery if the patient had total regurgitation upon preoperative examination of lacrimal irrigation (p = 0.028). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in success rates between silicone tube intubation using lacrimal endoscope and endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in adult acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction with no canalicular obstruction, although there was a lower success rate in patients with total nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Silicone tube intubation using lacrimal endoscope may reduce the frequencies and complications of unnecessary invasive operations and general anesthesia.
Purpose: To compare the success rate of silicone tube intubation using a lacrimal endoscope with that of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in adult acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction with no canalicular obstruction. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional study including 21 patients (31 eyes) treated with silicone tube intubation using lacrimal micro-endoscope and 29 patients (37 eyes) who underwent endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. We examined lacrimal irrigation, probing, and fluorescein dye disappearance before surgery. A total of 3 months after surgery, the silicone tube was removed. The success rates were determined based on symptoms and the results of lacrimal irrigation. Results: For silicone tube intubation in the lacrimal endoscopy group, success rates 3 and 6 months after surgery were 87.1% and 71.0%, respectively. In the endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy group, they were 91.9% and 81.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference in success rates 3 and 6 months after surgery (p = 0.517 and p = 0.327, respectively). However, a significantly higher success rate (81.8%) was observed in the endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy group compared with the silicone tube intubation using lacrimal micro-endoscope group (66.7%) at 6 months after surgery if the patient had total regurgitation upon preoperative examination of lacrimal irrigation (p = 0.028). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in success rates between silicone tube intubation using lacrimal endoscope and endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in adult acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction with no canalicular obstruction, although there was a lower success rate in patients with total nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Silicone tube intubation using lacrimal endoscope may reduce the frequencies and complications of unnecessary invasive operations and general anesthesia.
Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between the position and direction of a silicone tube in the nasal cavity after silicone tube intubation and clinical features. Methods: This study included 70 eyes of 52 patients who were diagnosed with nasolacrimal duct obstruction and had silicone intubation surgery. The position and direction of the silicone tube were compared after tube intubation and before extubation. An intranasal swap culture was performed before tube intubation, and the removed silicone tubes were cultured. Results: The length of the silicone tube decreased from 8.7 ± 3.1 mm after intubation to 7.3 ± 3.1 mm before extubation, and the direction of the tube moved backward in the nasal cavity (p < 0.05). The bacterial culture rate changed from 94.3% before intubation to 75.7% before extubation. The most common Gram-positive bacteria (both preoperative and postoperative) was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus aureus. The most common Gram-negative bacteria were converted from Klebsiella aerogenes to Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. The fungal culture rate changed from 7.1% to 51.4%, and the culture rate increased when the silicone tube direction was moved backward (p < 0.05). The length and direction of the silicone tubes were not correlated with clinical symptoms or changes in eyelid height. Conclusions: The length of the silicone tube in the nasal cavity decreased, and the tube tended to move in a posterior direction after silicone tube intubation. Considering the increase in the intra-nasal fungal culture rate, it is better to place the silicone tube in the anterior part of the nasal cavity from the inferior meatus. To clarify further the fungal infection and its clinical findings, a study of cultures with respect to location in the lacrimal system would be required.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.