Suppr超能文献

泪小管钻孔术与泪小管泪囊鼻腔吻合术治疗泪小管共同阻塞的疗效比较

Outcomes of canalicular trephination versus canaliculodacryocystorhinostomy in common canalicular blocks.

作者信息

Vukkadala Tejaswini, Bajaj Mandeep Singh, Pushker Neelam

机构信息

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

出版信息

Oman J Ophthalmol. 2022 Jun 29;15(2):198-203. doi: 10.4103/ojo.ojo_181_21. eCollection 2022 May-Aug.

Abstract

AIM

This study aimed to compare the outcomes and efficacy of canalicular trephination with monocanalicular stenting and canaliculodacryocystorhinostomy (canaliculoDCR) with silicone intubation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective comparative study was done in 30 patients (30 eyes) with common canalicular blocks who were randomized into two groups. Fifteen patients underwent canalicular trephination with monocanalicular stenting and 15 patients underwent canaliculoDCR with silicone intubation. Common canalicular obstruction was diagnosed by preoperative syringing and the location of block was confirmed on probing. Stents were kept in both the groups for 3 months and followed up till 6 months postoperatively. Success was defined based on both anatomical and functional outcomes. Anatomical success was defined by the free passage of fluid on syringing with the fluid felt in the throat. Functional success was defined in terms of relief from epiphora based on the subjective opinion and its categorization by Kraft and Crawford's grading and the fluorescein dye disappearance test (FDDT).

RESULTS

Eighty percent of eyes in canalicular trephination group and 73.3% of eyes in canaliculoDCR group were anatomically patent on syringing at the final follow-up. Sixty-six percent of eyes in trephination group and 53.3% in canaliculoDCR group were reported to have absent epiphora (complete recovery). Ten eyes in both groups had Grade 0 and 1 FDDT indicating a functional success of 66.6% in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Canalicular trephination can produce results comparable to canaliculoDCR with silicone intubation in cases of common canalicular blocks. The average duration of surgery is significantly less in canalicular trephination which gives this procedure an added advantage.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较泪小管穿刺联合单泪小管支架置入术与泪小管泪囊鼻腔吻合术(泪小管泪囊鼻腔吻合术)联合硅胶管置入术的治疗效果和疗效。

材料与方法

对30例(30眼)共同泪小管阻塞患者进行前瞻性对照研究,将其随机分为两组。15例患者接受泪小管穿刺联合单泪小管支架置入术,15例患者接受泪小管泪囊鼻腔吻合术联合硅胶管置入术。术前通过冲洗诊断共同泪小管阻塞,并通过探通确定阻塞部位。两组均留置支架3个月,术后随访至6个月。根据解剖和功能结果定义成功标准。解剖学成功定义为冲洗时液体能自由通过且能感觉到液体流入咽喉。功能成功根据主观感受、Kraft和Crawford分级以及荧光素染料消失试验(FDDT)对溢泪缓解情况进行定义。

结果

在最后一次随访时,泪小管穿刺组80%的眼冲洗时解剖结构通畅,泪小管泪囊鼻腔吻合术组73.3%的眼冲洗时解剖结构通畅。穿刺组66%的眼和泪小管泪囊鼻腔吻合术组53.3%的眼报告无溢泪(完全恢复)。两组各有10只眼FDDT为0级和1级,表明两组功能成功率均为66.6%。

结论

在共同泪小管阻塞病例中,泪小管穿刺术的治疗效果与泪小管泪囊鼻腔吻合术联合硅胶管置入术相当。泪小管穿刺术的平均手术时间明显更短,这是该手术的一个额外优势。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8b80/9351968/cbc573cb991d/OJO-15-198-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验