PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
To identify risk factors influencing the anatomical and functional outcomes of canaliculoplasty in canalicular laceration patients.
Methods
A retrospective investigation of 122 eyes of 122 patients diagnosed with canalicular laceration and treated in our hospital from January 2000 to October 2008 was conducted. Sex, age, cause and location of laceration, combined injury, preoperative duration, combined operation, duration of followup, and anatomical and functional outcomes of canaliculoplasty were investigated.
Results
The mean age of the 122 patients was 41.2 years; 102 (83.6%) were men, and 20 (16.4%) were women. The most common cause and combined injury of laceration was sharp object Injury (20.5%) and orbital wall fracture (14.7%). No statistically significant correlation was found between pretreatment duration, duration of silicone tube insertion, and anatomical outcome. The causes of decreasing functional outcome of canaliculoplasty were traumatic facial nerve palsy, cica-trical entropion and ectropion, and partial canalicular obstruction.
References
1. Kim SD, Kim IJ, Cho JH. Outcome of mini Monoka silicone mon-acanalicular lacrimal stents in canalicular laceration. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:1728–35.
2. Linberg JV, Moore CA. Symptoms of canalicular obstruction. Ophthalmology. 1988; 95:1077–9.
3. Schiedler V, Tarbet KJ, Lemke BN. Eyelids, eyebrow midfacial and lacrimal anatomy. Albert D, Miller J, Azar D, Blodi B, eds. Albert & Jacobiec's Principle and Practice of Ophthalmology. 3rd ed.Canada: Saunders Elsevier;2008. 3:chap. 243.
4. Lee JW, Kim KS, Kang JH. Minimal stitch canalicular repair of canalicular lacerations. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:701–5.
5. Wulc AE, Arterberry JF. The pathogenesis of canalicular laceration. Ophthalmology. 1991; 98:1243–9.
6. Riu R, Reboul N. Eyelid injuries with section of the lacrimal ducts. Bull Soc Ophthalmol Fr. 1964; 64:1107–8.
7. Hawes MJ, Dortzbach RK. Trauma of the lacrimal drainage system. lindberg JV, editor. Lacrimal Surgery. New York: Churchill Livingstone;1988. p. 241–62.
8. Callahan MA, Callahan A. Ophthalmic Plastic and Orbital Surgery. 1st ed.Briminghem: Aesculapius Publishing Company;1979. p. 160–1.
9. Mark RL. Repair of canalicular lacerations with silicone intubation. Manual of oculoplastic surgery. 2nd ed.1. Washington: Butterworths;1996. p. 33–6.
10. Kim OJ, Ko BY, Kim SJ, Ha MS. Clinical features associated with outcomes of canalicular laceration repair. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:8–13.
11. Conlon MC, Smith KD, Cadera W, et al. An animal model studying reconstruction techniques and histopathological changes in repair of canalicular lacerations. Can J Ophthalmol. 1994; 29:3–8.
Table 1.
Distribution of sex and average age
| Characters | Data |
|---|---|
| Male/Female | 102/20 |
| Average age (Range) | 42.1 (1-78) years |
| Duration of silicone tube inbutation | 2.2 months |
Table 2.
Causes of canalicular laceration
| Cause of trauma | No. of eyes (%) |
|---|---|
| Sharp object | 25 (20.5%) |
| Falling down & slipping | 23 (18.9%) |
| Fist | 10 (8.2%) |
| Blunt trauma | 21 (17.2%) |
| Traffic accident | 38 (31.1%) |
| Dog bite | 5 (4.1%) |
Table 3.
Comparison of postoperative outcome
| Success (%) | Failure (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Operation∗ | ||
| Within 48 hours | 104 (94.7%) | 7 (6.3%) |
| After 48 hours | 10 (90.9%) | 1 (9.1%) |
| Location† | ||
| Upper canaliculus | 14 (93.3%) | 1 (6.7%) |
| Lower canaliculus | 85 (95.5%) | 4 (4.5%) |
| Upper & lower canaliculus | 15 (88.2%) | 2 (11.8%) |
| Common canaliculus | 0 (0%) | 1 (100%) |
| Extubation‡ | ||
| 0-3 months | 5 (83.3%) | 1 (16.7%) |
| 4-6 months | 85 (94.4%) | 5 (5.6%) |
| Over 6 months | 24 (92.3%) | 2 (7.7%) |
XML Download