Monocanalicular Versus Bicanalicular Silicone Intubation for Nasolacrimal Duct Stenosis in Adults

Kashkouli, Mohsen Bahmani; Kempster, Roxanne; Galloway, G; Beigi, Bijan

doi:10.1097/01.iop.0000155524.04390.7b

Cited by 51 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We believe its use as the main outcome parameter in this study is justified, because several studies, including ours, have shown a discrepancy between patency and clearance of symptoms of tearing, at least in a subset of patients. 9,15,16 In this study, we found that the lacrimal system was patent in 10 of 16 patients with severe epiphora after treatment. We performed only irrigation tests at three months after surgery and not at long-term follow-up, when data were collected through a telephone survey.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…16 Furthermore, in our hands, the less invasive nature of dacryocystoplasty allows for continuation of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy without a significant risk of bleeding. Although silicone tubing may cause complications in itself, 16 these proved relatively minor in our series. Dacryocystoplasty occasionally may prove impossible because of the difficulty in introducing the catheter in the narrowed NLD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Silicone Intubation with or without Balloon Dacryocystoplasty in Acquired Partial Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

Bleyen¹,

Bosch²,

Bockholts³

et al. 2007

American Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

• PURPOSE: To examine if the addition of (antegrade) balloon dacryocystoplasty to bicanalicular silicone intubation affects the success rate in adults with incomplete nasolacrimal duct (NLD) obstruction.• DESIGN: Prospective, randomized trial.• METHODS: Seventy eyes of 70 patients with incomplete NLD obstruction and severe epiphora (Munk score grade 3 or 4) were treated randomly with dacryocystoplasty (Lacricath) and silicone intubation (Ritleng; n ‫؍‬ 35, group 1; mean age, 54.4 years; standard deviation [SD], 11.8 years) or silicone intubation alone (n ‫؍‬ 35, group 2; mean age, 53.5 years; SD, 13.1 years; P > .05). The silicone tubes were removed after, on average, three months. At the visit, we assessed the grade of epiphora using the Munk score. Complete success was defined as Munk score of 0 or 1, partial success was defined as Munk score of 2, and failure was defined as Munk score of 3 or 4. Long-term Munk scores were obtained through a telephone survey nine to 76 months after surgery (mean, 43.4 in group 1 and 34.9 in group 2; P > .05).• RESULTS: Complete success was reported by 18 patients (52%) in group 1 and by 20 patients (57%) in group 2. Partial success was reported by one patient in group 1 and by one patient in group 2. No improvement was reported by 15 patients (44%) in group 1 and by 14 patients (40%) in group 2. Differences between the two groups proved to be not significant (P ‫؍‬ .8, exact Chi-square trend test).• CONCLUSIONS: In our patients with acquired partial NLD obstruction, treatment with a combination of antegrade dacryocystoplasty and silicone intubation was not associated with a higher success rate compared with treatment with silicone intubation alone. (Am J Ophthalmol 2007;144:776 -780.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Silicone Intubation with or without Balloon Dacryocystoplasty in Acquired Partial Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

Bleyen¹,

Bosch²,

Bockholts³

et al. 2007

American Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[10][11][12] While bicanalicular intubation has been practiced since the 1970s, monocanalicular intubation did not start to become popular until the 1990s. [11] Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. [6,8,[10][11][12] In monocanalicular intubations, placement of the tube in the system can be sufficiently performed by entering only one punctum, where the tube is inserted from the upper and lower punctum in the ventricular intubation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[6,8,[10][11][12] In monocanalicular intubations, placement of the tube in the system can be sufficiently performed by entering only one punctum, where the tube is inserted from the upper and lower punctum in the ventricular intubation. [11,12] One of the most important advantages of the bicanalicular tube is that its surface is flatter [12][13][14] Monocanalicular tubes can cause abrasions or ulcers in the cornea, especially if they are placed in the upper canal and the collar side of the tube is larger. [14] Engel et al, [10] reported conjunctiva or corneal abrasion in 2% of 635 eyes where monocanalicular stapes were placed by upper canaliculus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone tube intubation results in patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Özgür¹

2017

South Clin Ist Euras

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Komínek

Červenka

Pniak

et al. 2011

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo compare the success rate of monocanalicular intubation (MCI) compared with bicanalicular silicone intubation (BCI) in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) in infants and toddlers.MethodsIn a prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study, MCI (n = 35 eyes) through the inferior canaliculus or BCI (n = 35 eyes) were performed under general anaesthesia in children aged 10 to 36 months with CNLDO. The tubes were removed 3–4 months after tube placement, and the children were followed up for 6 months after the removal of tubes. Therapeutic success was defined as the fluorescein dye disappearance test grade 0–1, corresponding with a complete resolution of previous symptoms. Partial success was defined as improvement with some residual symptoms.ResultsComplete and partial improvement was achieved in 31/35 (88.57%) in the BCI group and 34/35 (97.14%) in the MCI group. The difference between the two groups was not significant (p = 0.584). Complications occurred in both groups. Dislodgement of the tube and premature removal was observed in four BCI cases, and loss of the tube was observed twice in the MCI group. Canalicular slitting was observed in five eyes in the BCI group. Granuloma pyogenicum observed in 2 cases with MCI revealed a few weeks after the tube removal. Corneal erosion in the inferior medial quadrant was observed in one MCI eye and revealed in a few days after the local treatment without tube removal.ConclusionsBoth MCI and the BCI are effective methods for treating CNLDO. MCI has the advantage of a lower incidence of canalicular slit and easy placement.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00417-011-1700-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Monocanalicular Versus Bicanalicular Silicone Intubation for Nasolacrimal Duct Stenosis in Adults

Abstract: MCI had virtually the same complete success rate as BCI, a higher partial success rate than BCI, and a lower failure rate than BCI in treatment of nasolacrimal duct stenosis in adults.

Cited by 51 publications

References 18 publications

Silicone Intubation with or without Balloon Dacryocystoplasty in Acquired Partial Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

Silicone Intubation with or without Balloon Dacryocystoplasty in Acquired Partial Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

Monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone tube intubation results in patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About