Pushed monocanalicular intubation versus probing as a primary management for congenital nasolacrimal obstruction

9Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: Evaluation of efficiency, complications, and advantages of pushed monocanalicular intubation using Masterka ® tube versus simple probing in patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO). Patients and methods: This is a case-controlled study that included 60 eyes (of 53 patients); 30 eyes underwent probing and 30 eyes intubation using the Masterka tube as a primary treatment for CNLDO. The children were aged between 6 months and 36 months at the time of surgery, with no previous nasolacrimal surgical procedure, and had one or more of the following clinical signs of nasolacrimal duct obstruction: epiphora, mucous discharge, and/or increased tear lake. Results: We defined success by absence of epiphora, mucous discharge, or increased tear lake 1 month after tube removal. The overall success rate in the probing group was 80%, while it was 83.3% in the intubation group. Conclusion: Pushed monocanalicular intubation is an effective method for treatment of CNLDO; it requires only mask inhalation anesthesia and could be considered as an appropriate alternative procedure with imperceptible complications.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Elsawaby, E. A., El Essawy, R. A., Abdelbaky, S. H., & Ismail, Y. M. (2016). Pushed monocanalicular intubation versus probing as a primary management for congenital nasolacrimal obstruction. Clinical Ophthalmology, 10, 1487–1493. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S101713

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free