Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.57(8) > 1010355

TOOLS
Lee, Choi, and Ahn: Comparison of Results and Complications between 0.64 mm and 0.94 mm Silicone Tube Intubation in Adults
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2016;57(8):1193-1198.

Published online: 25 September 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2016.57.8.1193

Comparison of Results and Complications between 0.64 mm and 0.94 mm Silicone Tube Intubation in Adults

Dong Hyun Lee, MD1, Hee Young Choi, MD, PhD2, Jung Hyo Ahn, MD1

1Department of Ophthalmology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan, Korea

2Department of Ophthalmology, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea

Address reprint requests to Jung Hyo Ahn, MD Department of Ophthalmology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, #20 Geumo-ro, Mulgeum-eup, Yangsan 50612, Korea Tel: 82-55-360-2131, Fax: 82-55-360-2161 E-mail: jhahn77@hanmail.net

Received 11 February 2016       Revised 15 June 2016       Accepted 27 July 2016

Copyright © 2016 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 compare surgical success rates and complications of silicone tube intubation using 0.64-mm- and 0.94-mm-diam-eter tubes in adult patients with nasolacrimal duct stenosis.

Methods

In 62 eyes of 36 patients diagnosed with nasolacrimal duct stenosis who had undergone silicone tube intubation, we surveyed sex, age, symptom duration, time of tube removal, mean follow-up period, and surgical success rate between two groups divided by silicone tube diameter, 0.64 mm and 0.94 mm. By preoperative syringing test and dacryocystography, we examined the surgical results and complications of the two groups.

Results

The silicone tube diameter was 0.64 mm in 43 eyes (69.4%) and 0.94 mm in 19 eyes (30.2%). The surgical success rates in the two groups were 84.1% (36 eyes) and 78.9% (15 eyes), respectively, but the difference was not significant statistically. The surgical success rate was higher in partial stenosis than in complete stenosis but was not different according to silicone tube diameter according to preoperative syringing test and dacryocystography. Silicone tube disconnection and bending were only observed in 0.94-mm-diameter silicone tubes.

Conclusions

In silicone tube intubation for nasolacrimal duct stenosis in adults, silicone tube diameter does not affect operation success. However, silicone tube disconnection and bending were observed only in the 0.94 mm silicone tube.

Keywords: Dacryocystography, Nasolacrimal duct stenosis, Silicone tube diameter

References

1. Oum JS, Park JW, Choi YK, et al. Result of partial nasolacrimal duct obstruction after silicone tube intubation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004; 45:1777–82.
2. Keith CG. Intubation of the lacrimal passages. Am J Ophthalmol. 1968; 65:70–4.
crossref
3. Beigi B, O'Keefe M. Results of Crawford tube intubation in children. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1993; 71:405–7.
crossref
4. Ewing AE. Roentgen ray demonstration of the lacrimal abscess cavity. Am J Ophthalmol. 1909; 24:1–4.
5. Milder B, Demorest BH. Dacryocystography. I. The normal abdominal apparatus. AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1954; 51:180–95.
6. Jung JJ, Jang SY, Jang JW, In JH. Comparison results of silicone tube intubation according to syringing and dacryocystography. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2014; 55:1584–8.
crossref
7. Park JJ, Shin DS, Hong SP, Lee KW. Effects of double silicone tube intubation for nasolacrimal duct obstruction in adults. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:1951–6.
8. Moscato EE, Dolmetsch AM, Silkiss RZ, Seiff SR. Silicone abdominal for the treatment of epiphora in adults with presumed functional nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012; 28:35–9.
9. Kwon YH, Lee YJ. abdominal results of silicone tube intubation in incomplete nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO). J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:190–4.
10. Kim YR, Ahn M. Long term effect of double silicone tube abdominal for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2012; 53:1554–8.
11. Kashkouli MB, Kempster RC, Galloway GD, Beigi B. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular silicone intubation for nasolacrimal duct stenosis in adults. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005; 21:142–7.
crossref
12. Andalib D, Nabie R, Abbasi L. Silicone intubation for nasolacrimal duct stenosis in adults: monocanalicular or bicanalicular intubation. J Craniofac Surg. 2014; 25:1009–11.
13. Tucker SM, Linberg JV, Nguyen LL, et al. Measurement of the abdominal to fluid flow within the lacrimal outflow system. Ophthalmology. 1995; 102:1639–45.
14. Demirci H, Elner VM. Double silicone tube intubation for the abdominal of partial lacrimal system obstruction. Ophthalmology. 2008; 115:383–5.
15. Paik JS, Cho WK, Yang SW. Bicanalicular double silicone stenting in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with lacrimal trephination in distal or common canalicular obstruction. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012; 269:1605–11.
crossref
16. Hwang SW, Khwarg SI, Kim JH, et al. Bicanalicular double abdominal intubation in external dacryocystorhinostomy and canal-iculoplasty for distal canalicular obstruction. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009; 87:438–42.

Figure 1.
Classification of nasolacrimal duct stenosis according to dacryocystography finding. Mild (A), moderate (B), and severe (C) nasolacrimal duct stenosis (circles).
jkos-57-1193f1.tif
Figure 2.
Postoperative photographs of nasolacrimal duct stenosis patient. 0.64 mm diameter silicone tube was well located (A), Bent was presented in 0.94 mm diameter silicone tube (B).
jkos-57-1193f2.tif
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of the patients
  0.64 mm 0.94 mm p-value
Patients (number)     0.142*
 Male 13/26 (50.0%) 2/10 (20.0%)  
 Female 13/26 (50.0%) 8/10 (80.0%)  
Age (years) 62.3 ± 10.9 58.6 ± 10.3 0.259†
Laterality (eyes)     0.402*
 Right 23/43 (53.5%) 8/19 (42.1%)  
 Left 20/43 (46.5%) 11/19 (57.9%)  
Duration of symptom (months) 12.7 ± 6.4 18.2± 4.2 0.535†
Time of tube removal (months) 6.1 ± 1.5 6.2 ± 1.2 0.651†
Follow up time (months) 8.4 ± 2.5 8.1 ± 2.2 0.580†
Success rate 36/43 (84.1%) 15/19 (78.9%) 0.287*

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

* Fisher's exact test

† T-test.

Table 2.
Success rates according to syringing test between 0.64 mm and 0.94 mm silicone tube diameter
Syringing test 0.64 mm (success rate) 0.94 mm (success rate) p-value*
Well passed 20/22 (90.1%) 9/11 (81.8%) 0.206*
Passed with regurgitation 16/21 (76.2%) 6/8 (75.0%) 0.744*
p-value 0.045* 0.046*  

* Fisher's exact test.

Table 3.
Success rate according to dacryocystography between 0.64 mm and 0.94 mm silicone tube diameter
Dacryocystography 0.64 mm (success rate) 0.94 mm (success rate) p-value
Mild 26/28 (92.9%) 6/6 (100.0%) 0.640*
Moderate 6/8 (75.0%) 8/11 (72.7%) 0.395*
Severe 4/7 (57.1%) 1/2 (50%) 0.583*
p-value 0.378† 0.601†  

* Fisher's exact test

† One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test.

Table 4.
Complications between 0.64mm and 0.94mm silicone tube diameter
Complication 0.64 mm 0.94 mm p-value
Discomfort 6 (13.9%) 7 (36.8%) 0.632*
Dislocation 3 (7.0%) 4 (21.1%) 0.682*
Punctal slit 1 (2.3%) 3 (15.8%) 0.527*
Disconnection 0 (0%) 4 (21.1%) 0.000*
Bent 0 (0%) 3 (15.8%) 0.000*

* Fisher's exact test.

TOOLS
Similar articles