초록 열기/닫기 버튼
Purpose: To compare the clinical effects of the single wide-diameter bicanalicular silicone tube and the doublebicanalicular silicone tube in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) with canalicular trephinization for canalicularobstruction. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 121 patients with monocanalicular or common canalicularobstruction who had undergone endonasal DCR with random bicanalicular insertion of either double siliconetubes (insertion of two tubes into each canaliculus) or a single wide-diameter (0.94 mm) silicone tube. Thetubes were removed at around 3 months after surgery. Results: This study included 79 eyes of 61 patients in the double-tube intubation group and 68 eyes of 60 patientsin the single wide-diameter tube intubation group. Anatomical success, evaluated by syringing, wasachieved in 72 of the 79 eyes (91.1%) in the double-tube intubation group and 60 of the 68 eyes (88.2%) in thesingle wide-diameter tube intubation group. Functional success was achieved in 65 of the 79 eyes (82.3%)in the double-tube intubation group and 61 of the 68 (89.7%) eyes in the single wide-diameter tube intubationgroup. There were no significant differences in the success rates of surgery between the two groups. One patientin the double-tube intubation group underwent conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy (CDCR) and two in thewide-diameter tube intubation group underwent CDCR or reintubation to treat recurrence. Conclusions: Intubation using a single wide-diameter tube during endonasal DCR is as effective as double-tubeintubation for the treatment of canalicular obstruction, with a lower rate of complications such as inflammationor patient discomfort.
