Silicone intubation with the Ritleng method using intranasal endoscopy to treat congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular silicone intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

“…In our study, the success rate for BCI both as a primary and a secondary treatment compares favorably with the previously reported success rates, which have ranged from 62.5% to 100% for BCI in treatment of CNLDO. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] In our study, the treatment success of MCI and BCI in complex obstruction was similar (87.5% vs 89%). However, our success rate in complex obstruction is less than that reported by Engel and colleagues, 10 who achieved a 95.3% success rate in complex obstruction with MCI.…”

“…In our study, tube loss was uncommon in both the MCI and the BCI groups (only 1 eye in each), compared with tube loss after MCI of 7.6% to 43.7% reported in other studies. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] The unplanned removal of a Crawford stent because of a dislodgment of the tube occurred in 3 of 27 eyes (11.1%), compared with tube dislodgment in 3.1% to 41% of cases reported in other studies. [11][12][13][17][18][19] Tube-associated infection occurred in only 1 eye with MCI (0.03%) and 2 eyes (0.07%) with BCI, compared with rates of tube-associated infection in other studies at 8.5% for MCI 4 and 3% for BCI.…”

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

“…[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. [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.…”

“…Success rates of between 69% and 100% have been reported in this method. [5][6][7][8][9] In this study, we aimed to compare the results of monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone intubation in patients with CLDO whose probing and lavage procedures were unsuccessful.…”

Two Rare Forms of Slit Lacrimal Canaliculus; Self-Inflicted and Congenital

“…Yar›k punktum veya yar›k kanalikül olarak ad-land›r›lan durum, klinik pratikte en s›k kanalikül yaralan-mas› veya do¤umsal dakriyostenozu olan hastalarda, silikon entübasyonun bir komplikasyonu olarak karfl›m›za ç›kar. Silikon tüpün gergin biçimde dü¤ümlenmesine veya uzun süre yerinde b›rak›lmas›na ba¤l›d›r (4)(5)(6). Di-¤er nedenlere ba¤l› yar›k kanalikül olgular› seyrek görülür.…”