Skip to main content
main-content

01.11.2011 | Oculoplastics and Orbit | Ausgabe 11/2011 Open Access

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 11/2011

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

Zeitschrift:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology > Ausgabe 11/2011
Autoren:
Pavel Komínek, Stanislav Červenka, Tomáš Pniak, Karol Zeleník, Hana Tomášková, Petr Matoušek
Wichtige Hinweise

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.

Abstract

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.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag als Mediziner

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt e.Med zum Sonderpreis bestellen!

Gräfes Archiv

Online-Abonnement

Zusatzmaterial
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2011

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 11/2011 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Augenheilkunde

28.08.2020 | Leitthema | Ausgabe 10/2020

Künstliche Intelligenz in der Augenheilkunde

Leitfaden für Ärzte zur kritischen Bewertung von Studien