The Clinical Outcome of Silicone Tube Intubation According to the Site Resistant to Lacrimal Duct Probing

Chan Min Yang; In Ki Park

doi:10.3341/jkos.2015.56.7.975

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.56(7) > 1010316

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Yang and Park: The Clinical Outcome of Silicone Tube Intubation According to the Site Resistant to Lacrimal Duct Probing

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2015;56(7):975-979.

Published online: 27 August 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2015.56.7.975

The Clinical Outcome of Silicone Tube Intubation According to the Site Resistant to Lacrimal Duct Probing

Chan Min Yang, M.D, In Ki Park, M.D, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to In Ki Park, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, #23 Kyungheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-872, Korea Tel: 82-2-958-8458, Fax: 82-2-966-7340 E-mail: ikpark@khu.ac.kr

∗ This study was presented as an e-poster at the 111th Annual Meeting of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2014.

Received 31 October 20147 February 2015 Accepted 20 May 2015

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 outcomes of silicone tube intubation according to the site of resistance to lacrimal duct probing in complete or partial nasolacrimal duct obstruction patients.

Methods:

This study included 102 eyes of 72 patients who were diagnosed with complete or partial nasolacrimal duct obstruction and who underwent silicone tube intubation. According to the site of resistant to nasolacrimal duct probing, eyes were divided in-to proximal resistance (Group I), distal resistance (Group II) and both side resistance (Group III). The success rate was esti-mated based on functional (symptom relief) and anatomical (normalization of tear meniscus) success.

Results:

The success rates in Group I, Group II, and Group III were 53.1%, 78.8%, and 27.0%, respectively, showing that Group II attained the highest success rate (Pearson chi-square test, p = 0.001).

Conclusions:

In cases of only distal resistance to lacrimal probing without dacryocystography, silicone tube intubation should be performed with expectation of good clinical outcomes, even if complete nasolacrimal obstruction was suspected on syringing. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2015;56(7):975-979

Keywords: Lacrimal duct probing, Nasolacrimal duct obstruction, Syringing

References

1. Jeffrey JH, Myron Y, Jay SD. The lacrimal drainage system. Ophthalmology. 1999; 7:71–8.

2. Kim JH, Kim JM, Woo KI. The role of dacryocystography in eval-uation of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthlamol Soc. 2006; 47:1713–9.

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

4. Han JS, Park IK, Shin JH. Success rate of silicone intubation be-tween nasolacrimal duct obstruction and stenosis according to dacryocystography. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:845–9.

5. 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.

6. Lee HS, Hwang WS, Byun YJ. Clinical results of silicone in-tubation for nasolacrimal duct obstruction in adult. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1997; 38:1926–30.

7. Kim HD, Jeong SK. Silicone tube intubation in acquired nasolacri-mal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2000; 41:327–31.

8. Park JS, Ha SW, Lew H. Factors affecting the long-term outcome of silicone tube intubation in patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2011; 52:129–35.

9. Saleh GM, Gauba V, Tsangaris P, Tharmaseelan K. Digital sub-traction dacryocystography and syringing in the management of epiphora. Orbit. 2007; 26:249–53.

10. Gibbs DC. New probe for the intubation of lacrimal canaliculi with silicone rubber tubing. Br J Ophthalmol. 1967; 51:198.

11. Moscato EE, Dolmetsch AM, Silkiss RZ, Seiff SR. Silicone in-tubation for the treatment of epiphora in adults with presumed functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012; 28:35–9.

12. Kim YR, Ahn M. Long term effect of double silicone tube in-tubation for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2012; 53:1554–8.

13. Kwon YH, Lee YJ. Long-term results of silicone tube intubation in incomplete nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:190–4.

14. Angrist RC, Dortzbach RK. Silicone intubation for partial and total nasolacrimal duct obstruction in adults. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985; 1:51–4.

15. Lee HS, Lew H, Yun YS. Classification of nasolacrimal duct ob-struction according to dacryocystographic finding and its clinical significance. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:1475–82.

Table 1.

Demographics of patients

	Proximal resistance (n = 32)	Distal resistance (n = 33)	Both resistance (n = 37)	p-value
Age (years)	64.72 ± 12.55	61.24 ± 13.34	61.27 ± 13.57	0.46^∗
Sex (Male/female) (n, %)	9 (28.1)/23 (71.9)	13 (39.4)/20 (60.6)	9 (24.3)/28 (75.7)	0.39^†
Laterality (Rt/Lt)	16/16	11/22	18/19	0.321^†
Duration of symptom (months)	32.69 ± 33.38	26.06 ± 26.14	25.97 ± 40.13	0.656^∗
Duration of intubation (months)	4.97 ± 1.68	5.03 ± 1.49	5.03 ± 1.46	0.534^∗
Follow-up (months)	8.09 ± 3.32	8.21 ± 1.52	9.38 ± 5.11	0.128^‡

Values are presented as mean ± SD or n (%).

Rt = right, Lt = left.

^∗ One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test;

^† Pearson chi-square test;

^‡ Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 2.

Success rate of silicone tube intubation

	Proximal resistance (n = 32)	Distal resistance (n = 33)	Both resistance (n = 37)	p-value
Success (n, %) Failure (n, %)	17 (53.1) 15 (46.9)	26 (78.8) 7 (21.2)	10 (27.0) 27 (73.0)	0.001^∗

Values are presented as n (%).

^∗ Pearson chi-square test.

Table 3.

Success rate in complete and incomplete obstruction evaluated by syringing

		Success	Failure	p-value
Complete	Proximal resistance	4 (66.7)	2 (33.3)	0.001^∗
	Distal resistance	9 (100.0)	0 (0)
	Both resistance	2 (20.0)	8 (80.0)
	Total	15 (60.0)	10 (40.0)
Incomplete	Proximal resistance	13 (50.0)	13 (50.0)	0.014^∗
	Distal resistance	17 (70.8)	7 (29.2)
	Both resistance	8 (29.6)	19 (70.4)
	Total	38 (49.4)	39 (50.6)

Values are presented as n (%).

^∗ Fisher’s exact test;

^† Pearson chi-square test.

TOOLS

Similar articles