Comparison of different types of catheter treatment of anastomotic ring canalicular effect
10.3980/j.issn.1672-5123.2016.11.48
- VernacularTitle:不同吻合环形置管术治疗泪小管断裂的疗效研究
- Author:
Shu-Hong, CAI
;
Shi-Hua, ZHANG
;
Qing-Shan, SONG
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
canalicular;
circular stapling catheter;
silicone tube
- From:
International Eye Science
2016;16(11):2157-2159
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
AIM: To investigate the comparison of different types of catheter treatment of anastomotic ring canalicular effect.
METHODS:Retrospective analysis. A total of 114 cases 114 eyes were randomly selected between May 2013 to May 2015 jointly admitted to Huizhou Huizhou City People's Hospital and the Central People's Hospital of canalicular patients in accordance with the agreement of the annular catheterization divided into three groups, group A of annular nasal lacrimal duct catheterization in 36 eyes, group B for the whole nasal lacrimal annular catheterization in 33 eyes, group C between the upper annular tears point catheterization 45 eyes. Through the A, B, C three groups after 1, 3wk, 1, 3mo and 1y follow-up were analyzed to compare.
RESULTS:Group A of 31 eyes were cured, improved in 2 eyes, 3 eyes, the effective rate was 91. 7%;group B, 27 cases were cured, improved in 3 eyes, 3 eyes, the effective rate was 90. 9%;group C, 40 cases were cured, improved in 2 eyes, 3 eyes, the effective rate was 93. 3%. A, B, C three groups efficiency pointless difference (P=0. 124). Eye Effect: A, B, C meaningful difference among the three groups(F=36. 578; P=0.002), Group A scored the highest score of a minimum group C, respectively( 3. 5±0. 8 ) and ( 2. 3±0. 7 ); comparison meaningless difference between group a and group B( t=0. 086, P>0. 05 ); Group A and C and comparison of differences between group C and group B have the significance ( t = 15. 241, t = 17. 472; P<0. 05 ). Nasal influence: A, B, C meaningful difference among the three groups(F=778. 581;P=0. 001), the highest score in group B, group C minimum scores were(6. 6±0.8) and ( 0. 9 ± 0. 7 ); A, B, C three groups comparison of differences twenty-two have significance(t=17. 262; t=18.247; t = 16. 647; P<0. 05). Shape Effect: A, B, C difference among the three groups of meaningful ( F=481. 113;P=0. 002), Group A scored the highest score of a minimum group C, respectively(5. 8±0. 9) and(1. 2±0.6);Compare the difference between Groups B and C meaningless ( t = 0. 087, P > 0. 05 ); comparing the differences between the Groups A and B and between Group A and C were significance(t=26. 362, t=27. 532; P<0. 05 ). Unplug risk: A, B, C meaningful difference among the three groups(F=751. 121;P=0. 003), Group A scored the highest score of a minimum group C, respectively(6. 5±0. 7 ) and ( 1. 5±0. 7 ); A, B, C three groups comparison of differences twenty - two have significance(t=19. 642; t=20. 153; t=18. 345; P<0. 05). Group A had 8 patients had lower eyelid eversion, 5 cases of inferior lacrimal point expansion, 13 cases of sneezing, itchy nose, runny nose syndrome. Group B had 20 cases of varying degrees of now sneezing, itchy nose, runny nose syndrome. Group C had no serious complications.
CONCLUSION: Similar to A, B, C three groups of treatment efficacy, patient lacrimal functional recovery is safe and effective, which the group C treatment, during treatment and less material and fewer postoperative complications in patients, it is worth promotion.
