Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.54(11) > 1009522

TOOLS
Youm, Lee, Jang, Baek, and Lee: Monocanalicular and Bicanalicular Intubation with Sequential Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Patients Over the Age of 24 Months
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2013;54(11):1635-1640.

Published online: 2 September 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.11.1635

Monocanalicular and Bicanalicular Intubation with Sequential Probing for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction in Patients Over the Age of 24 Months

Jie Hyun Youm, MD1, Hwa Lee, MD, PhD1, Min Wook Jang, MD, PhD2, Se Hyun Baek, MD, PhD1, Tae Soo Lee, MD, PhD3

1Department of Ophthalmology, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

2Department of Ophthalmology, Dongguk University, Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea

3Nune Eye Hospital, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Se Hyun Baek, MD, PhD, Department of Ophthalmology, Korea University Guro Hospital, #148 Gurodong-ro, Guro-gu, Seoul 152-703, Korea, Tel: 82-2-2626-1260, Fax: 82-2-857-8580 E-mail: shbaek6534@korea.ac.kr

Received 12 April 2013       Revised 29 May 2013       Accepted 17 October 2013

Copyright © 2013 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

The clinical effectiveness of monocanalicular or bicanalicular intubation with sequential probing was evaluated in patients over the age of 24 months with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Methods

Patients over 24 months of age with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction who underwent monocanalicular intubation with sequential probing (19 patients, 20 eyes) or bicanalicular intubation with sequential probing (22 patients, 22 eyes) were studied. Success rates and complications were evaluated. Silicone tube was removed 6 months after surgery. Success was defined as no epiphora and no retention on fluorescein dye disappearance test.

Results

The success rate was 95.0% (19 eyes / 20 eyes) in the monocanalicular intubation group and complications included 7 cases of early tube dislodgement, which achieved successful outcome. The success rate was 82.6% (19 eyes / 22 eyes) in the bicanalicular intubation group and complications included 4 cases of punctal slitting, and 3 cases of tube extrusion. The success and complication rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups (p = 0.608, p = 1.000, respectively).

Conclusions

In congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction, the monocanalicular tube intubation group had similar success and complication rates to the bicanalicular tube intubation group. Silicone tube maintenance for 2 months in the monocanalicular group and for 3 months in the bicanalicular group was sufficient.

Keywords: Bicanalicular intubation, Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction, Monocanalicular intubation, Sequential probing

References

1. Guerry D, Kendig EL. Congenital impotency on the nasolacrimal duct. Arch Ophthalmol. 1948; 39:193–204.
2. Noda S, Hayasaka S, Setogawa T. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in Japanese infants: its incidence and treatment with massage. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1991; 28:20–2.
3. Paul TO, Shepherd R. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: natural history and the timing of optimal intervention. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1994; 31:362–7.
crossref
4. Lee SY, Chung HS, Kim HB, et al. The incidence of congenital na- solacrimal duct obstruction in Korean neonates. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1989; 30:5–8.
5. Oh HS, Ahn Y. The incidence and medical treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in Korean infants. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1995; 36:1007–13.
6. Paul TO. Medical management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1985; 22:68–70.
crossref
7. Petersen RA, Robb RM. The natural course of congenital ob- struction of the nasolacrimal duct. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1978; 15:246–50.
8. Katowitz JA, Welsh MG. Timing of initial probing and irrigation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology. 1987; 94:698–705.
crossref
9. Gunton KB, Chung CW, Schnall BM, et al. Comparison of balloon dacryocystoplasty to probing as the primary treatment of con- genital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS. 2001; 5:139–42.
10. Nucci P, Capoferri C, Alfarano R, Brancato R. Conservative man- agement of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1989; 26:39–43.
11. Robb RM. Success rates of nasolacrimal duct probing at time inter- vals after 1 year of age. Ophthalmology. 1998; 105:1307–10.
12. Nelson LB, Calhoun JH, Menduke H. Medical management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology. 1985; 92:1187–90.
crossref
13. El-Mansoury J, Calhoun JH, Nelson LB, Harley RD. Results of late probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology. 1986; 93:1052–4.
crossref
14. Cho KW, Lee SY, Kim SJ. Treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction using silicone intubation set. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1995; 36:553–8.
15. Yoon TJ, Na KS, Yoon WJ. The effect of silicone tube intubation in pediatric nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2002; 43:155–9.
16. Lim CS, Martin F, Beckenham T, Cumming RG. Nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children: outcome of intubation. J AAPOS. 2004; 8:466–72.
crossref
17. Peterson NJ, Weaver RG, Yeatts RP. Effect of short-duration sili- cone intubation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008; 24:167–71.
18. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Primary treatment of na- solacrimal duct obstruction with nasolacrimal duct intubation in children younger than 4 years of age. J AAPOS. 2008; 12:445–50.
19. 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.
crossref
20. Leone CR Jr, Van Gemert JV. The success rate of silicone in- tubation in congenital lacrimal obstruction. Ophthalmic Surg. 1990; 21:90–2.
21. Kraft SP, Crawford JS. Silicone tube intubation in disorders of the lacrimal system in children. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982; 94:290–9.
crossref
22. Beigi B, O'Keefe M. Results of Crawford tube intubation in children. Acta Ophthalmol. 1993; 71:405–7.
crossref
23. Veloudios A, Harvey JT, Philippon M. Long-term placement of si- lastic nasolacrimal tubes. Ophthalmic Surg. 1991; 22:225–7.
24. Kim KS, Park TK, Choi WC. Intranasal endoscopic diagnosis and treatment in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2001; 42:7–12.
25. Anderson RL, Edwards JJ. Indications, complications and results with silicone stents. Ophthalmology. 1979; 86:1474–87.
crossref
26. Hyon JY, Khwarg SI, Wee WR, et al. Monocanalicular lacrimal sil- icone intubation for the treatment of pediatric lacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2001; 42:553–7.
27. Clark RA. Dilation probing as primary treatment for congenital na- solacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS. 2002; 6:364–7.
28. Munk PL, Lin DT, Morris DC. Epiphora: treatment by means of dacryocystoplasty with balloon dilation of the nasolacrimal drain- age apparatus. Radiology. 1990; 177:687–90.
29. Al-Faky YH, Al-Sobaie N, Mousa A, et al. Evaluation of treatment modalities and prognostic factors in children with congenital naso- lacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS. 2012; 16:53–7.
30. Honavar SG, Prakash VE, Rao GN. Outcome of probing for con- genital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in older children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000; 130:42–8.
31. El-Essawy R. Effect of timing of silicone tube removal on the result of duct intubation in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 29:48–50.
crossref
32. Kashkouli MB, Kassaee A, Tabatabaee Z. Initial nasolacrimal duct probing in children under age 5: cure rate and factors affecting success. J AAPOS. 2002; 6:360–3.
crossref
33. Kashkouli MB, Beigi B, Parvaresh MM, et al. Late and very late in- itial probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: what is the cause of failure? Br J Ophthalmol. 2003; 87:1151–3.
34. Hakim OM Mand, our W, Elbaz E. Nasal endoscopic visualization and management of the leading causes of probing failure. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2010; 47:214–9.
crossref
35. Welsh MG, Katowitz JA. Timing of silastic tubing removal after intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989; 5:43–8.
crossref
36. Komínek P, Cervenka S, Pniak T, et al. Monocanalicular versus bi- canalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011; 249:1729–33.
37. Engel JM, Hichie-Schmidt C, Khammar A, et al. Monocanalicular silastic intubation for the initial correction of congenital nasolacri- mal duct obstruction. J AAPOS. 2007; 11:183–6.
38. Andalib D, Gharabaghi D, Nabai R, Abbaszadeh M. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular silicone intubation for congenital nasolacri- mal duct obstruction. J AAPOS. 2010; 14:421–4.
39. Lee BH, Jeong SK, Park YG. Slilicone intubation for treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2000; 41:1680–4.
40. Mun HJ, Chung WS. Surgical efficacy of probing with silicone in- tubation for lacrimal apparatus obstruction in children. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2002; 43:2375–81.
41. Peterson NJ, Weaver RG, Yeatts RP. Effect of short-duration sili- cone intubation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008; 24:167–71.
42. Lee H, Ahn J, Lee JM, et al. Clinical effectiveness of mono- canalicular and bicanalicular silicone intubation for congenital na- solacrimal duct obstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2012; 23:1010–4.
43. Migliori ME, Putterman AM. Silicone intubation for the treatment of congenital lacrimal duct obstruction: successful results removing the tubes after six weeks. Ophthalmology. 1988; 95:792–5.
crossref
44. Kaufman LM, Guay-Bhatia LA. Monocanalicular intubation with Monoka tubes for the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology. 1998; 105:336–41.
crossref

Table 1.
Characteristics of monocanalicular and bicanalicular intubation group with sequential probing
Monocanalucular intubation with sequential probing Bicanalicular intubation p
Age at surgery (months) 31.8 ± 4.5 28.5 ± 4.9 0.065*
Sex (male/female) 3:1 13:9 0.338†
Timing of tube removal (months) 5.8 ± 0.7 6.2 ± 0.9 0.130*
Follow up period (months) 14.4 ± 1.8 15.1 ± 2.1 0.370*
Complication rate (%) 35.0 31.8 1.000†

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

* Mann-Whitney test;

† Fisher's exact test.

TOOLS
Similar articles