Comparison of the results between monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone tube intubation in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Aim: In this study we aimed to compare the retrospective results of the success rates in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction undergoing monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone tube intubation. Materials and Methods: Bicanalicular (Group 1) and monocanalicular (Group 2) silicone tube intubation was performed in 48 eyes of 42 patients using the Ritleng method. Sixteen of the patients were boys and 26 were girls. Bicanalicular silicone tube intubation was performed in 26 eyes of 22 patients, and monocanalicular silicone tube intubation was performed in 22 eyes of 20 patients. Results: The mean age of patients was 5.68±1.83 years (2-9 years) in the first group, and 5.05±1.76 years (3-9 years) in the second group. The period of leaving the silicone tube was 3.61±1.38 months (1-6 months) in the first group, and 3.18±1.00 months (1-6 months) in the second group. The mean follow up period of the patients was found to be 11.8 months (6-36 months) in the bicanalicular group and 14.0 months (6-36 months) in the monocanalicular group.The success rate was 92.30% (22 of 26 eyes) in the first group and 95.45% (21 of 22 eyes) in the second group. In the first group, 2 patient’s bicanalicular tube was removed spontaneously 2 months ago, 2 patients were performed dacryocystorhinostomy, 1 patient developed pyogenic granuloma and laceration occurred in the lower canaliculus of 1 patient. In the second group, the tubes of 2 patients were removed spontaneously 2 months ago and silicone tube intubation was performed again with the same method. In this group, 1 patient was then performed dacryocystorhinostomy and 1 patient developed conjunctivitis. There were no corneal or conjunctival complications in either group. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in success rates between the groups (p>0.05).

PDF

___

1. Zilelioglu G, Ugurbaş SH. Treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Turkey Clinics J Ophthalmol 1999;8:290-4.
2. Mauffray RO, Hassan AS, Elner VB. Double silicone intubation as treatment for persistent congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;20:449.
3. Elsawaby EA, Essawy RA, Abdelbaky SH, et al. Pushed monocanalicular intubation versus probing as a primary management for congenital nasolacrimal obstruction. Clin Ophthalmol 2016;10:1487-93.
4. Andalib D, Gharabaghi D, Nabai R, et al. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular silicone intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 2010;14:421- 4.
5. Yazici B, Akarsu C, Salkaya M. Silicone intubation with the ritleng method in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 2006;10:328- 32.
6. Keith CG. Intubation of lacrimal passage. Am J Ophthalmol 1968;65:70-4.
7. Kashkouli MB, Kempster RC, Galloway GD, et al. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular silicone intubation for nasolacrimal duct stenosis in adults. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;21:142-7.
8. Tan AD, Rubin PAD, Sutula FC, et al. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2001;41:57-69.
9. Lekskul A, Khamapirad B, Nimvorapun T. Simple technique for silicone intubation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Med Assoc Thai 2004;87:1082-86.
10. Fayet B, Bernard JA, Assouline M, et al. Bicanalicular versus monocanalicular silicon intubation for nasolacrimal duct impatency in children: A comparative study. Orbit 1993;12:149-56.
11. Kominek P, Cervenka S, Pniak T, et al. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011;249:1729-33.
12. Lee H, Ahn J, Lee JM, et al. Clinical effectiveness of monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Craniofac Surg 2012;23:1010-14.
13. Engel JM, Hichie-Schmidt C, Khammar A, et al. Monocanalicular silastic intubation for the initial correction of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS 2007;11:183-6.
14. Abdalla WM. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular endoscopic assisted ritleng intubation for treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. New Front Ophthalmol 2016;2:1-4.
15. Ozgur OR, Akmaz B, Kandemir B, et al. Monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone tube intubation results in patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. South Clin Istanb Eurasia 2017;28:130- 4.
16. Vagge A, Desideri LF, Nucci P, et al. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: A review. Diseases 2018;6:96
17. Yalaz M, Ozcan AA, Akcali C, et al. Lacrimal intubation with the ritleng system in recurrent congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2004;66:35-7.
18. Kaufman LM, Guay-Bhatia LA. Monocanalicular intubation with monoka tubes for the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology 1998;105:336-41.
19. Chen PL, Chen CH, Hsiao CH, et al. The experience with ritleng intubation system in patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Chin Med Assoc 2004;67:344-8.