Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.50(1) > 1008565

TOOLS
Oh, Byung, Sung, and Myung: Clinical Features Associated With Outcomes of Canalicular Laceration Repair
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2009;50(1):8-13.

Published online: 7 September 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2009.50.1.8

Clinical Features Associated With Outcomes of Canalicular Laceration Repair

Jae Kim Oh, M.D, PhD1, Yi Ko Byung, M.D, PhD1, Joo Kim Sung, M.D, PhD2, Sook Ha Myung, M.D, PhD1

1Department of Ophthalmology, KonYang University College of Medicine, Daejon, Korea

2Department of Ophthalmology, KonYang University College of Medicine, Kim's Eye Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Myung Sook Ha, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Konyang University College of Medicine #685 Gasuwon-dong, Seo-gu, Daejon 302-718, Korea Tel: 82-42‐600‐9258, Fax: 82-42‐600‐9176, E-mail: hmseye@hanmail.net

Received 23 December 2008       Accepted 2 June 2008

Copyright © 2009 Korean Ophthalmological Society

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 evaluate clinical characteristics and outcome of repair of canalicular laceration with Crawford stent.

Methods

All 40 patients who underwent canalicular laceration repair from 2004 to 2007 in the hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, cause of canalicular injury, surgical management with Crawford stent, and its outcome were analyzed

Results

Most cases were male with step wound (34 cases 85%). Average age of fourty patients was 41.7 years old. Outcome had varied depending on the time of surgery, the location of laceration, the suture method, the wound condition, and the duration for stent. Maintaining silicone tube more than three months, and surgical approach within forty‐ eight hours resulted in statistically significant results.

Conclusions

The outcome of canalicular laceration was better when surgical approach was done within forty‐ eight hours and silicone tube was maintained more than three months.

Keywords: Bicanalicular intubation, Canalicular laceration, Crawford tube

References

1. Kennedy RH, May J, Dailey J, Flanagan JC. Canalicular laceration. An 11-year epidemiologic and clinical study. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990; 6:46–53.
2. Hawes MJ, Dortzbach RK. Trauma of the lacrimal drainage system in lacrimal surgery. New York: Churchill Livingstone,. 1988; 241–62.
3. Wulc AE, Arterberry JF. The pathogenesis of canalicular laceration. Ophthalmology. 1991; 98:1243–9.
crossref
4. Kohn R. Textbook of ophthalmic plastic and recontructive surgery. 1st ed, Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger. 1988; 252–77.
5. Kim SD, Kim IJ, Cho JH. Outcome of mini Monoka silicone monocanalicular lacrimal stents in canalicular laceration. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:1725–35.
6. Jung JH, Na KS, Choi KJ. The effectiveness of canaliculoplasty using Mini-MonokaⓇ or bicanalicular stent for repair of upper and lower canalicular laceration. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2000; 41:114–9.
7. Back SH, Hur H, Psrk MS. Canaliculoplasty using MONOKAⓇ stent (monocanaliculonasal stent) for repair of canalicular laceration. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2001; 42:955–9.
8. Snead JW, Rathbun JE, Crawford JB. Effects of the silicone tube on the canaliculus : An animal experiment. Ophthal-mology. 1980; 87:1031–6.
9. Keith CG. Intubation of the lacrimal passages. Am J Ophthalmol. 1968; 65:70–4.
crossref
10. Quickert MH, Dryden RM. Probed for intubation in lacrimal drainage. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1970; 74:431–3.
11. Crawford JS. Intubation of obstructions in the lacrimal system Canad J Ophthalmil. 1977; 12:289–92.
12. Kim SD, Yang YS, Kim JD. A Clinical study on silicone intubation for canalicular laceration. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1996; 37:405–10.
13. Riu R, Reboul N. Eyelid injuries with section of the lacrimal ducts. Bull Soc Ophthalmol France. 1964; 64:1107–8.
14. Hasselmayer H. Prognosis of injured canaliculi in relation to elapsed time until primary operation. Ophthalmologica. 1973; 166:175–9.
crossref
15. Hawes MJ, Segrest DR. Effectiveness of bicanalicular silicone intubation in the repair of canalicular laceration. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985; 1:185–90.
16. Ramocki JM, Nesi FA, Spoor TC. Management of Ocular, Orbital and adnexal Trauma, New York: Raven Press,. 1988; 381–426.
17. Wobig JL. Lacerations of the lacromal excretory system. Tessier BL, Callahan A, Mustarde JC, editors. . Symposium on Plastic Surgery in the Orbital Region. St Louis: Mosby;1976. v4. chap. 50.
18. Callahan MA, Callahan A. Ophthalmic Plastic and Orbital Surgery. 1st. Birminghem: Aesculapius Publishing Company;1979. p. 160–1.
19. Lee CS, Jung SK, Paek YG. Canaliculoplasty using Mini-MonokaⓇ or Bicanalicular Stent for Repair of Canali-cular Laceration. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1999; 40:895–901.
20. Welharm RAN : The immediate management of injuries to the lacrimal apparatus Trans Ophthalmology Soc U K. 1982; 102:216–7.
21. Smit TJ, Mourits MP. Monocanalicular lesions: to reconstruct or not. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106:1310–2.
22. Baylis HI, Axelrod R. Repair of the lacerated canaliculus. Opthalmology. 1978; 85:1271–6.
crossref
23. Morrison FD. An aid to repair of lacerated tear ducts. Arch Ophthalmol. 1964; 71:341.
crossref
24. Loff HJ, Wobig JL, Dailey RA. The Bubble Test: An Atraumatic Method for Canalicular Laceration Repair. Ophthalmic Plastic Reconstr Surg. 1996; 12:61–4.
crossref
25. Saunder DH, Shannor GM, Flanagan JC. The effectiveness of the pigtail method of repairing canalicular laceration. Ophthalmic Surg. 1978; 9:33–40.
26. Anderson RL, Edwards JJ. Indications, complications and results with silicone stents. Ophthalmology. 1972; 86:1474–87.
crossref
27. Conlon MR, Smith KD, Cadera W. . An animal model studying reconstruction techniques and histopathological changes in repair of canalicular lacerations. Can J Ophthalmol. 1994; 29:3–8.
28. Mark RL. Repair of canalicular lacerations with silicone intubation. Robert MD, Frannk GB, editors. Manual of oculoplastic surgery. 2nd. Washinton: Butterworths;1996. v. 6. chap. 33.

Table 1.
Distribution of sex and age
No. of eyes (%)
Gender
Male 34 (85.0)
female 6 (15.0)
Age (year)
0~19 3 (7.5)
20~29 3 (10.0)
30~39 9 (22.5)
40~49 14 (35.0)
50~59 5 (12.5)
60~ 5 (12.5)
Table 2.
Wound status and causes of canalicular laceration
Wound status Clean Causes No. of eyes (%)
Sharp object 13 (32.5)
Dirty
Falling down & slipping 11 (27.5)
Fist 5 (12.5)
Blunt trauma 7 (17.5)
Traffic accident 4 (10.0)
Table 3.
Postoperative result by time to canalicular repair
Success (%) Fail (%)
Within 48 hrs (No.) 35 (94.6) 2 (5.4)
After 48 hrs (No.) 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7)

p=0.022 by Fischer's eexact test; No.=number of eyes.

Table 4.
Postoperative result by time to location of canalicular injury
Success (%) Fail (%)
Upper canaliculus 7 (87.5) 1 (12.5)
Lower canaliculus 21 (75.0) 7 (25.0)
Upper & lower canaliculus 3 (75.0) 1 (25.0)

p=0.846 by Fischer's exact test; No.=number of eyes.

Table 5.
Postoperative result by method of canalicular repair
Success (%) Fail (%)
Direct repair (No.) 13 (92.9) 1 (7.1)
Soft tissue repair (No.) 23 (88.5) 3 (11.5)

p=1.000 by Fischer's exac ct test; No.=numbber of eyes.

Table 6.
Postoperative result by wound status of canalicular laceration
Success (%) Fail (%)
Clean wound (No.) 12 (92.3) 1 (7.7)
Dirty wound (No.) 24 (88.9) 3 (11.1)

p=1.000 by Fischer's exact test; No.=number of eyes.

Table 7.
Postoperative result by time to silicone tube extubation
Success (%) Fail (%)
Within 3 months (No.) 2 (50.0) 2 (50.0)
After 3 months (No.) 34 (94.4) 2 (5.6)

p=0.043 by Fischer's exact test; No.=nummber of eyes.

TOOLS
Similar articles