Comparison of Clinical Efficacy Between Tie Methods of Silicone Tube Intubation in Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

Young Min Park; Gi Hong Koo; Ji-Eun Lee; Jong Soo Lee; Yoon Kyung Kim

doi:10.3341/jkos.2009.50.2.177

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.50(2) > 1008437

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park, Koo, Lee, Lee, and Kim: Comparison of Clinical Efficacy Between Tie Methods of Silicone Tube Intubation in Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2009;50(2):177-181.

Published online: 3 August 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2009.50.2.177

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy Between Tie Methods of Silicone Tube Intubation in Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

Young Min Park, MD¹, Gi Hong Koo, MD¹, Ji-Eun Lee, MD¹, Jong Soo Lee, MD¹, Yoon Kyung Kim, PhD²

¹Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, Pusan National University, Pusan, Korea

²Department of Ophthalmic Optics, Kaya University, Kyungbuk, Korea

Address reprint requests to Jong Soo Lee, MD Department of Ophthalmology, Pusan National University Hospital #1-10 Ami-dong, Seo-gu, Pusan 602-739, Korea Tel: 82-51-240-7957, Fax: 82-51-242-7341, E-mail: jongsool@pusan.ac.kr

Received 23 April 2008 Accepted 19 August 2008

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcome of silicone tube intubation according to the tie methods.

Methods

Eighty-eight eyes of 87 patients who underwent silicone tube intubation were divided into two groups based on the tie method: a silicone silastic sheet group (Group 1, n=59) and a nylon 6-0 suture knot group (Group 2, n=29). The two groups were compared according to their success rates, recurrence rates and complications.

Results

No significant difference was found in the success rate between the two groups (83.0% in Group 1 and 82.7% in Group 2). However, Group 2 showed a significantly higher rate of postoperative complications than Group 1. In Group 1, 5/59 (8.4%) eyes had ocular irritation, 2/59 (3.4%) eyes exhibited tube prolapse, conjunctivitis, corneal erosion, and dacryocystitis and 1/69 (1.6%) eyes had a punctal slit after intubation. In Group 2, 3/29 (10.3%) eyes had ocular irritation, 2/29 (6.9%) eyes exhibited tube prolapse, conjunctivitis, a punctal slit, and dacryocystitis, and 1/29 (3.4%) eyes showed corneal erosion, or a granuloma after intubation. A recurrence of symptomatic tearing was found in 6/59 (10%) eyes in Group 1 and 3/29 (10%) in Group 2.

Conclusions

In silicone tube intubation of incomplete NLD obstruction, the usage of silicone silastic sheets to tie both ends of the silicone tube produced a lower complication rate and a higher success rate than that of the suture knot group. Lower tension on the nasolacrimal passage in the silicone silastic sheet group allows for a significantly lower rate of punctal slit development. Therefore, the method of using silicone silasitic sheets can be considered useful in the treatment of NLD obstruction.

Go to :

Keywords: Nasolacrimal duct obstruction, Silicone silastic sheet, Tie method

References

1. Dortzbach RK, France TD, Kushner BJ, Gonnering RS. Silicone intubation for obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct in children. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982; 94:585–90.

2. Al-Hussain H, Nasr AM. Silastic intubation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: A study of 129 eyes. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993; 9:32–7.

3. Pashby RC, Rathbun JE. Silicone tube intubation of the lacrimal drainage system. Arch Ophthalmol. 1979; 97:1318–22.

4. Leone CR Jr, Van Gemert JV. The success rate of silicone intubation in congenital lacrimal obstruction. Ophthalmic Surg. 1990; 21:90–2.

5. Lee SH, Kim SD, Kim JD. Silicone intubation for nasolacrimal duct obstruction in adult. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1997; 38:185–9.

6. Soll DB. Silicone intubation-an alternative to dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology. 1978; 85:1259–66.

7. Anderson RL, Edwards JJ. Indications, complications and results with silicone stents. Ophthalmology. 1979; 86:1474–87.

8. Kim DM, Roh KK. Results with Silicone Stent in Lacrimal Drainage System. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1987; 28:733–5.

9. Sohn HY, Hur J, Chung EH, Won IG. Clinical Observation on Silicone Intubation in Obstruction of Lacrimal Drainage System. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1990; 31:135–40.

10. Crawford JS. Intubation of obstruction in the lacrimal system. Can J Ophthalmol. 1977; 12:289–92.

11. Kushner BJ. Congenital nasolacrimal system obstruction. Arch Ophthalmol. 1982; 100:597–600.

12. Ham DI, Yu YS. Silicone Intubation in Children with Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1991; 32:409–14.

13. Cho KW, Lee SY, Kim SJ. Treatment of Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction Using Silicone Intubation Set. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1995; 36:553–8.

14. Henderson JW. Management of obstructions of lacrimal canaliculi with polyethylene tubes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1950; 44:198–203.

15. Hong SW, Chang HK. The Complications of Silicone Tube Intubation after Lacrimal Surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1998; 39:2496–76.

Go to :

Figure 1.

A tie made at the silicone silastic sheet by using silicone tube (A), and a tie made by Nylon 6-0 (B).

undefined

Table 1.

Clinical Characteristics

Groups	Group 1	Group 2	p-value
Age	46.3 (15-75) years	46.0 (21-61) years	>0.05^†
Male : Female	19 : 40 eyes	8 : 21 eyes	>0.05^*
Symptom duration	12 (1.0-120) months	11 (1.0-36) months	>0.05^†
Tube removal	4.6 (1.0-12.0) months	5.1 (2.5-8.0) months	>0.05^†
Success rate	49/59 (83.1%)	24/29 (82.7%)	>0.05^*

^* Fisher’s exact test;

^† paired t test.

Table 2.

The Rate and the type of postoperative complications after Silicone tube intubation using silastic sheet or suture knot group in NLD obstructed patients

	Group 1 No. of eyes (%)	Group 2 No. of eyes (%)	) P value^*
Ocular Irritation	5 (8.4%)	3 (10.3%)	> 0.05
Punctal slit	1 (1.6%)	2 (6.9%)	0.03
Tube prolapse	2 (3.4%)	2 (6.9%)	> 0.05
Granuloma	0	1 (3.4%)	> 0.05
Conjunctivitis	2 (3.4%)	2 (6.9%)	> 0.05
Corneal erosion	2 (3.4%)	1 (3.4%)	> 0.05
Inflammation of lacrimal passage	2 (3.4%)	2 (6.9%)	> 0.05
Total	14/59 (23.7%)	13/29 (37.9%)	0.04

^* Fisher’s exact test.

TOOLS

Similar articles