Routine Use of a Silicone Stent in a Dacryocystorhinostomy

Older, J. Justin

doi:10.3928/1542-8877-19821101-04

Cited by 35 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conclusions: Bicanalicular double silicone intubation for DCR and canaliculoplasty may be an effective mode of treatment for patients with distal or common canalicular obstruction. Dortzbach et al 1982;Older 1982;Gonnering 1994). We speculated that a wider stent would keep the canalicular channel walls more separated, thereby increasing the chance of patency after the tube is removed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bicanalicular double silicone intubation in external dacryocystorhinostomy and canaliculoplasty for distal canalicular obstruction

Hwang

Khwarg

Kim³

et al. 2009

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of bicanalicular double silicone intubation in dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) and canaliculoplasty for distal or common canalicular obstruction. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of patients with distal or common canalicular obstruction who had undergone bicanalicular double silicone intubation (insertion of two tubes into each canaliculus) during external DCR and canaliculoplasty. We reviewed the records of subjects who had undergone the same surgery with a bicanalicular single intubation as control material. The tubes were removed at around 6 months after surgery. Anatomical and functional success rates of patients who were followed up for > 2 months after the removal of tube(s) were evaluated. In addition, complications related to the silicone tube were evaluated. Results: Data for 60 eyes of 45 patients in the double‐intubation group and 69 eyes of 65 patients in the single‐intubation group were retrieved. The double‐intubation group showed higher anatomical success rates (96.5%) than the single‐intubation group (85.5%). Functional success was achieved by 53 (88.3%) of 60 eyes in the double‐intubation group and 56 (81.2%) of 69 eyes in the single‐intubation group. There was no significant difference in complication rates between the two groups. Conclusions: Bicanalicular double silicone intubation for DCR and canaliculoplasty may be an effective mode of treatment for patients with distal or common canalicular obstruction.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bicanalicular double silicone intubation in external dacryocystorhinostomy and canaliculoplasty for distal canalicular obstruction

Hwang

Khwarg

Kim³

et al. 2009

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because the most common causes of failed dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) involve common canaliculus or osteotomy site obstructions (Lindberg & Anderson 1980;McLachlin et al 1980;Zolli & Shannon 1982), it is generally assumed that the use of silicone tubes in DCR may prevent these obstructions, and thus improve surgical results. Moreover, many reports concerning simultaneous silicone intubation in DCR have concluded that it is a safe and effective procedure for canalicular or nasolacrimal duct disorders (Katowitz 1974;Bedrossian 1979;Dortzbach et al 1982;Older 1982). Based on this reasoning and these reports, most surgeons have routinely used silicone tubes in all DCR procedures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective non‐intubation of a silicone tube in external dacryocystorhinostomy

Choung¹,

Khwarg²

2006

Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT.Purpose: To evaluate whether silicone tube insertion is always necessary in external dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). Methods: During external DCR for primary nasolacrimal duct obstruction carried out between January 2001 and October 2004, silicone intubation was not performed selectively if the lacrimal sac was large and the nasal cavity was not severely narrowed. Results: Of a total of 166 DCR cases in 153 patients, no silicone tube was placed in 74 eyes of 69 patients (44.6%). Anatomic patency of rhinostomy was achieved in all non-intubation group eyes. However, four (6.7%) of these 69 eyes showed persistent epiphora even with anatomic patency. Conclusions: Silicone tubing can be avoided in about 50% of cases of external DCR without detrimentally affecting the success rate. Cases in which intubation was avoided had a large lacrimal sac and a wide nasal cavity.

show abstract

“…In 1982, Older observed a success rate of 94% (by formal Jones testing) in 70 patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction, suturing only an anterior flap of nasal mucosa to the periosteum near the anterior lacrimal crest and routinely intubating with silicone rubber. 13 Becker described excision of the medial 40% of the lacrimal sac, no flaps and routine silicone intubation, achieving 89.8% anatomical success at 11 months in 50 cases. 14 Rosen et al described their experience of routinely intubating 253 cases, suturing anterior flaps and excising posterior flaps.…”

Section: The Evolution Of Routine Intubationmentioning

confidence: 99%