比较经小管缝合与直接小管壁缝合治疗泪小管断裂。
Comparing pericanalicular sutures with direct canalicular wall sutures for canalicular laceration.
机构信息
Department of Ophthalmology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
出版信息
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Nov-Dec;27(6):422-5. doi: 10.1097/IOP.0b013e31822113df.
PURPOSE
To determine whether a statistically significant difference exists between direct canalicular wall sutures (DCs) and pericanalicular sutures (PCs) in the repair of traumatic canalicular lacerations.
METHODS
The medical records of 63 patients who underwent primary repairs for traumatic canalicular lacerations were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to the suturing techniques used: the DC group (n = 41) and the PC group (n = 22). Anatomic results were compared between these 2 groups. A successful result was determined by attempted irrigation and probing of the injured canaliculus at the last follow-up visit.
RESULTS
There were 6 failed procedures among the patients who underwent pericanalicular repair and 1 failed procedure among the patients who underwent direct canalicular wall repair (p = 0.024).
CONCLUSIONS
These data support the higher success rates in patients treated with direct canalicular repair compared with pericanalicular repair.
目的
确定外伤性泪小管断裂修复中直接泪小管壁缝合（DC）与经泪小管缝合（PC）的效果是否存在统计学差异。
方法
回顾性分析 63 例行初次修复治疗的外伤性泪小管断裂患者的病历资料。根据所采用的缝合技术将患者分为 2 组：DC 组（n = 41）和 PC 组（n = 22）。比较两组的解剖结果。最后一次随访时，通过对损伤的泪小管进行冲洗和探查来确定手术是否成功。
结果
经 PC 修复的患者中有 6 例手术失败，经 DC 修复的患者中有 1 例手术失败（p = 0.024）。
结论
与经 PC 修复相比，直接泪小管修复的患者成功率更高，这些数据支持这一结论。
Zotero 插件