Clinical Outcomes of Nasolacrimal Probing and Silicone Intubation in Patients with Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction
10.3341/jkos.2019.60.7.613
- Author:
Sung Hyun AHN
1
;
Tae Eun LEE
;
In Cheon YOU
;
Nam Chun CHO
;
Min AHN
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Chonbuk National University Medical School, Jeonju, Korea. ahnmin@jbnu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Congenital;
Intubation;
Lacrimal duct obstruction
- MeSH:
Humans;
Intubation;
Lacrimal Duct Obstruction;
Logistic Models;
Medical Records;
Nasolacrimal Duct;
Retrospective Studies;
Silicon;
Silicones
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2019;60(7):613-619
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and factors affecting the success rates of nasolacrimal probing and silicone intubation (SI) in patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients including 69 eyes of 59 patients who received probing and 61 eyes of 49 patients who received SI. In patients with probing, the age, sex, and history of conservative treatment were analyzed in the success and failure groups, and a success rate comparison was conducted by dividing these values into postnatal group 1 (< 6 months), group 2 (6–12 months), and group 3 (≥ 12 months) following their age. In patients with SI, the age, sex, retention period of the tube, and history of probing and conservative treatment were analyzed in the success and failure groups. RESULTS: In the failure group involving probing, the average age was significantly higher compared with the success group (p = 0.005), and the success rate of group 3 was significantly lower compared with group 2 (p = 0.005). In the failure group involving SI, the age was significantly higher (p = 0.015); however, the retention period was shorter (p = 0.006), and the history of probing also showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.009). Logistic regression analysis showed that the age and history of probing had an effect on the success rate (p = 0.049 and p = 0.047, respectively); however, the retention period was not statistically significant (p = 0.411). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CNLDO > 12 months, the success rate of probing was lower than in patients < 12 months, and probing might have an effect on the success rate of future SIs. It is therefore recommended that SI be preferentially performed on patients > 12 months.
