Pediatric canalicular laceration repair using the Mini Monoka versus Masterka monocanalicular stent

Epidemiology of monocanalicular stenting in paediatric lacrimal canalicular trauma

“…Mini-Monoka stents are increasingly being used for canalicular repair, but few studies have examined surgical outcomes specifically in a paediatric population. [2][3][4][5] Agarwal et al found early stent loss in 6% of their 18 cases. 5 Our observed 19% extrusion rate was closer to the 21% reported by Mangan et al in their 14 patient Mini-Monoka cohort.…”

“…This is particularly problematic in children who have a greater proclivity for eye rubbing compared to adults. 4 To our knowledge, this study, which summarises the epidemiology and surgical outcomes, is the largest paediatric cohort to undergo primary Mini-Monoka stenting for traumatic canalicular laceration repair.…”

“…5 Our observed 19% extrusion rate was closer to the 21% reported by Mangan et al in their 14 patient Mini-Monoka cohort. 4 Of interest, Masterka stents ® (FCI Ophthalmics) were compared to the Mini-Monoka by Mangan et al and found to have no early dislodgement. 4 The authors suggested "reduced bending" during insertion lead to decreased premature loss; however, it is more likely that Masterka stent extension into the nasolacrimal duct provided increased security.…”

“…4 Of interest, Masterka stents ® (FCI Ophthalmics) were compared to the Mini-Monoka by Mangan et al and found to have no early dislodgement. 4 The authors suggested "reduced bending" during insertion lead to decreased premature loss; however, it is more likely that Masterka stent extension into the nasolacrimal duct provided increased security. Although premature loss leading to disrupted healing of pericanalicular tissue 4 has been hypothesized as a disadvantage of monocanalicular stenting, our results and those of Mangan et al found no association between premature stent extrusion and consequential epiphora.…”

“…4 The authors suggested "reduced bending" during insertion lead to decreased premature loss; however, it is more likely that Masterka stent extension into the nasolacrimal duct provided increased security. Although premature loss leading to disrupted healing of pericanalicular tissue 4 has been hypothesized as a disadvantage of monocanalicular stenting, our results and those of Mangan et al found no association between premature stent extrusion and consequential epiphora. 4 Our functional success rate of 83% was lower than both comparable studies (94% 5 and 100% 4 ), however neither included patients sustaining bi-canalicular lacerations which, in our study, demonstrated lower success rates.…”