| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3107818 | Chinese Journal of Traumatology | 2009 | 4 Pages |
ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical effects of one-passage, double-passage and circular canalicular intubations in repairing lacerations of canaliculus.MethodsA total of 109 eyes in 109 cases of canalicular laceration were repaired with three types of silicone intubations, among which 23 with one-passage canalicular intubation, 51 with double-passage canalicular intubation, and 35 with circular canalicular intubation. The average follow-up period was 12–15 months.ResultsThe wound/junction of the lacrimal canaliculi was ruptured in 5 cases (9.80%) of the double-passage group, 3 cases (8.57%) of the circular group, and 8 cases (34.78%) of the one-passage group. The rupture incidence of the one-passage group was significantly higher than that of the other two groups (x 2=9.416, P<0.01). During the intubation, canaliculitis was observed in 12 cases (23.53%) of the double-passage group, while only 3 cases (8.57%) in the circular group and 8 cases (34.78%) in the one-passage group. The circular group had significantly lower incidence of canaliculitis than the other two groups (x2=6.095, P<0.05). After extubation 6 months after laceration repair, the lacrimal passage remained patent with canalicular irrigation in 46 cases (90.20%) in the double-passage group, 30 cases (85.71%) in the circular group and 15 cases (65.22%) in the one-passage group. Six months after surgery, the canalicular patency in the one-passage group was significantly lower than that of the other two groups (x2=7.390, P<0.05).ConclusionsCircular canalicular intubation is more stable and has less surgical complications than the double-passage and one-passage canalicular intubations. It is also more effective clinically 12–15 months after laceration surgery.
