Clinical Study on Acute Conjunctivitis after Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy with Silicone Tube Intubation

Jin-hwan Park; Minwook Chang; Tae Soo Lee

doi:10.3341/jkos.2011.52.7.794

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.52(7) > 1009077

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park, Chang, and Lee: Clinical Study on Acute Conjunctivitis after Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy with Silicone Tube Intubation

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2011;52(7):794-799.

Published online: 7 September 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2011.52.7.794

Clinical Study on Acute Conjunctivitis after Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy with Silicone Tube Intubation

Jin-hwan Park, MD, Minwook Chang, MD, Tae Soo Lee, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Tae Soo Lee, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Korea University Guro Hospital #97 Gurodong-gil, Guro-gu, Seoul 152-703, Korea Tel: 82-2-2626-1260, Fax: 82-2-857-8580, E-mail: tsoooo@hanmail.net

Received 3 January 2011 Revised 31 January 2011 Accepted 27 April 2011

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 investigate the incidence and clinical course of acute conjunctivitis after endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) with silicone tube intubation.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on 547 eyes in 517 patients who had undergone endoscopic DCR with silicone tube intubation between 2005 and 2009. The onset, incidence and symptoms of acute conjunctivitis, the effect of silicone tube intubation on acute conjunctivitis, and the effect of acute conjunctivitis on the success rate of DCR were investigated.

Results

The incidence of acute conjunctivitis was 3.8%. The mean age of 21 patients with acute conjunctivitis was 52.6 ± 14.3 years and the mean follow-up period of those was 18.0 ± 6.4 months after surgery. All the cases of acute conjunctivitis were resolved with topical antibiotic treatment after silicone tube removal. The success rates between patients with and without conjunctivitis were not significantly different (80.95% and 88.97%, respectively; p = 0.282). However, 4 patients with surgical failure had a longer time from onset of acute conjunctivitis to the removal of the silicone tube than 17 patients with surgical success (0.22 months and 1.13 months, respectively; p = 0.047). A higher rate (76.2%) of conjunctivitis developed in patients with granuloma around the surgical ostium.

Conclusions

A correlation may exist between acute conjunctivitis and granuloma in patients with DCR with silicone tube intubation. Acute conjunctivitis did not appear to influence the surgical results, although a delayed timing of silicone tube removal in patients with conjunctivitis could decrease the success rate.

Keywords: Acute conjunctivitis, Dacryocystorhinostomy, Silicone tube

References

1. Rosen N, Sharir M, Moverman DC, Rosner M. Dacryocystorhinostomy with silicone tubes: evaluation of 253 cases. Ophthalmic Surg. 1989; 20:115–9.

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

3. Bedrossian RH. Silicone intubation of the lacrimal drainage system. Ophthalmic Surg. 1979; 10:39–44.

4. Quickert MH, Dryden RM. Probes for intubation in lacrimal drainage. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1970; 74:431–3.

5. Snead JW, Rathbun JE, Crawford JB. Effects of the silicone tube on the canaliculus: an animal experiment. Ophthalmology. 1980; 87:1031–6.

6. Dresner SC, Codère F, Brownstein S, Jouve P. Lacrimal drainage system inflammatory masses from retained silicone tubing. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984; 98:609–13.

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

8. Lauring L. Silicone intubation of the lacrimal system: pitfalls, problems and complications. Ann Ophthalmol. 1976; 8:489–98.

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. Jordan DR, Nerad JA. An acute inflammatory reaction to silicone stents. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987; 3:147–50.

11. Ruby AJ, Lissner GS, O'Grady R. Surface reaction on silicone tubes used in the treatment of nasolacrimal drainage system obstruction. Ophthalmic Surg. 1991; 22:745–8.

12. Jung BY, Kim YD. Canaliculitis after dacryocystorhinostomy with silicone tubes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:390–5.

13. Iliff CE. A simplified dacryocystorhinostomy. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1954; 58:590–2.

14. Woog JJ, Metson R, Puliafito CA. Holmium:YAG endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993; 116:1–10.

15. Older JJ. Routine use of a silicone stent in a dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmic Surg. 1982; 13:911–5.

16. Allen K, Berlin AJ. Dacryocystorhinostomy failure: association with nasolacrimal silicone intubation. Ophthalmic Surg. 1989; 20:486–9.

17. Walland MJ, Rose GE. The effect of silicone intubation on failure and infection rates after dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmic Surg. 1994; 25:597–600.

18. Keith CG. Intubation of the lacrimal passages. Am J Ophthalmol. 1968; 65:70–4.

19. Katowitz JA. Silicone tubing in canalicular obstructions. A preliminary report. Arch Ophthalmol. 1974; 91:459–62.

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

Figure 1.

(A) Acute conjunctivitis after DCR. (B) Viral conjunctivitis.

Table 1.

Characteristics of patients with and without acute conjunctivitis after endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with silicone tube intubation

	Acute conjunctivitis		p-value^*
	(+) (n = 21)	(−) (n = 526)	p-value^*
Age (mean ± SD, yr)	52.6 ± 14.3	54.2 ± 16.2	0.648^*†
Sex (M:F)	6:15	126:400	0.604^†
Follow-up period (mean ± SD, mon)	18.0 ± 6.4	20.1 ± 9.1	0.392^*
Tube removal (mean ± SD, mon [range])	3.6 ± 1.0 (1.75–5.5)	5.9 ± 0.2 (5.0–6.0)	<0.001^*

^* p-value for Mann-Whitney test

^† p-value for Fisher exact test.

Table 2.

Timings of silicone tube removal and success rates according to onset of acute conjunctivitis after endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy

	Onset of acute conjunctivitis after endonasal DCR		p-value
	<3 mon (n = 6)	>3 mon (n = 15)	p-value
Tube removal (mean ± SD, mon)^*	0.83 ± 0.75	0.22 ± 0.28	0.106^†
Success rates (% [eye])	66.7 (4/6)	86.7 (13/15)	0.544^†

^* Period from onset of acute conjunctivitis to removal of silicone tube

^† p-value for Mann-Whitney test.

Table 3.

Success rates and incidence of granuloma according to acute conjunctivis

	Acute conjunctivitis		p-value
	(+) (n = 21)	(−) (n = 526)	p-value
Success rates (% [eye])	80.95 (17/21)	88.97 (468/526)	0.282^*
Granuloma (% [eye])	76.2 (16/21)	16.9 (89/526)	<0.001^*

^* p-value for Mann-Whitney test.

Table 4.

Relation between timing of silicone tube removal and outcome of DCR

	Silicone tube removal (mean ± SD, mon)^*	p-value
Success (n = 17)	0.22 ± 0.28	0.047^†
Failure (n = 4)	1.13 ± 0.75	0.047^†

^* Period from onset of acute conjunctivitis to removal of silicone tube

^† p-value for Mann-Whitney test.

TOOLS

Similar articles