Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: To compare the success rate of monocanalicular intubation (MCI) compared with bicanalicular silicone intubation (BCI) in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) in infants and toddlers. METHODS: In a prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study, MCI (n = 35 eyes) through the in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Komínek, Pavel, Červenka, Stanislav, Pniak, Tomáš, Zeleník, Karol, Tomášková, Hana, Matoušek, Petr
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3203220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21681436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-011-1700-2
_version_ 1782215091871023104
author Komínek, Pavel
Červenka, Stanislav
Pniak, Tomáš
Zeleník, Karol
Tomášková, Hana
Matoušek, Petr
author_facet Komínek, Pavel
Červenka, Stanislav
Pniak, Tomáš
Zeleník, Karol
Tomášková, Hana
Matoušek, Petr
author_sort Komínek, Pavel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare the success rate of monocanalicular intubation (MCI) compared with bicanalicular silicone intubation (BCI) in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) in infants and toddlers. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: Complete 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. CONCLUSIONS: Both 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 MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00417-011-1700-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3203220
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32032202011-11-10 Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction Komínek, Pavel Červenka, Stanislav Pniak, Tomáš Zeleník, Karol Tomášková, Hana Matoušek, Petr Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Oculoplastics and Orbit BACKGROUND: To compare the success rate of monocanalicular intubation (MCI) compared with bicanalicular silicone intubation (BCI) in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) in infants and toddlers. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: Complete 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. CONCLUSIONS: Both 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 MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00417-011-1700-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer-Verlag 2011-06-17 2011 /pmc/articles/PMC3203220/ /pubmed/21681436 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-011-1700-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2011 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Oculoplastics and Orbit
Komínek, Pavel
Červenka, Stanislav
Pniak, Tomáš
Zeleník, Karol
Tomášková, Hana
Matoušek, Petr
Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction
title Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction
title_full Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction
title_fullStr Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction
title_full_unstemmed Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction
title_short Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction
title_sort monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction
topic Oculoplastics and Orbit
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3203220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21681436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-011-1700-2
work_keys_str_mv AT kominekpavel monocanalicularversusbicanalicularintubationinthetreatmentofcongenitalnasolacrimalductobstruction
AT cervenkastanislav monocanalicularversusbicanalicularintubationinthetreatmentofcongenitalnasolacrimalductobstruction
AT pniaktomas monocanalicularversusbicanalicularintubationinthetreatmentofcongenitalnasolacrimalductobstruction
AT zelenikkarol monocanalicularversusbicanalicularintubationinthetreatmentofcongenitalnasolacrimalductobstruction
AT tomaskovahana monocanalicularversusbicanalicularintubationinthetreatmentofcongenitalnasolacrimalductobstruction
AT matousekpetr monocanalicularversusbicanalicularintubationinthetreatmentofcongenitalnasolacrimalductobstruction