Monocanalicular Versus Bicanalicular Stent in Transcanalicular Diode Laser Dacryocystorhinostomy

Quratulain Paracha; Ubaidullah Yasin; Muhammad Kamran Saeed; Omer Farooq; Summaiya Urooj

doi:10.51253/pafmj.v76i3.12288

Authors

Quratulain Paracha Department of Ophthalmology, Pakistan Navy Station Shifa Hospital, Karachi Pakistan
Ubaidullah Yasin Department of Ophthalmology, Pakistan Navy Station Shifa Hospital, Karachi Pakistan
Muhammad Kamran Saeed Department of Ophthalmology, Pakistan Navy Station Shifa Hospital, Karachi Pakistan
Omer Farooq Department of Ophthalmology, Pakistan Navy Station Shifa Hospital, Karachi Pakistan
Summaiya Urooj Department of Ophthalmology, Pakistan Navy Station Shifa Hospital, Karachi Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v76i3.12288

Keywords:

Bicanalicular, Monocanalicular, Silicone stent, Transcanalicular diode laser

Abstract

Objective: To assess the success rate of monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation to maintain the patency of ostium following TDL-DCR.

Study design: Quasi-Experimental Study.

Place and Duration of Study: Ophthalmology Department PNS Shifa Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan from Mar to Aug 2023.

Methodology: A total of 246 patients with acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction were operated for TDL-DCR using an Intermedic Diode laser (810nm) to create the bony ostium. They were randomly divided into Groups I and II for monocanalicular and bicanalicular stents respectively. Sac syringing and probing were done at follow-up visits on day 1, week 1, months 1, 3, and 6.

Results: There were 129(52.84%) females and 116(47.15%) males. Their mean age was 46.30±13.44 years. The right side was affected in 115(46.74%) and left in 105(42.68%) while bilateral blockade was present in 26 (10.6%) cases.

At 6 months postoperatively 90(73.2%) in Group I and 94(76.4%) in Group II (p:0.68) patients had patent ostium and no epiphora was present in 75 (61%) and 80 (65%) patients (p:0.71) respectively.

At 3 months postoperative 47(38.2%) patients in Group I and 91(74%) in Group II had the silicone stent removed by the surgeon. Spontaneous stent prolapse was noted in 68(55.3%) patients in Group I and 22(17.9%) in Group II. (p:0.27)

Conclusion: Both monocanalicular and bicanalicular intubation are effective in keeping the ostium patent after TDL-DCR.

We recommend large-scale studies to establish any preference for mono or bicanalicular intubation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Ozturker C, Purevdorj B, Karabulut GO. A comparison of transcanalicular, endonasal and external dacryocystorhinostomy in functional epiphora: A minimum two-year follow-up study. Journal of Ophthalmology 2022; 1-7.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3996854

2. Zaldivar R A, Woog J J. Recent developments in the evaluation and management of adult lacrimal obstruction. US Ophthalmic Rev 2007;(02):45-48.

https://doi.org/10.17925/USOR.2007.02.00.45

3. Ghasemi H, Asl SA, Yarmohammadi ME, Jafari F, Izadi P. External Dacryocystorhinostomy; Success rate and causes of failure in endoscopic and pathologic evaluations. Iran J Pathol 2017; 12(3): 189-194.

4. Kim N J, Kim JH, Hwang SW, Choung HK, Lee Y J, Khwarg S I. Lacrimal silicone intubation for anatomically successful but functionally failed external Dacryocystorhinostomy. Korean J Ophthalmol 2007; 21(2): 70-73.

https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2007.21.2.70

5. Akcam HT, Konuk O. Mechanical transnasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy versus transcanalicular multidiode laser dacryocystorhinostomy: long-term results of a prospective study. Lasers Med Sci 2021; 36 (2): 349-356.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-020-03038-7

6. Tariq M, Jamil AZ, Ali S, Khalid M, Akash A. Comparison of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with external Dacryocystorhinostomy. Pak J Ophthalmol 2021; 37 (3): 317-321.

https://doi.org/10.36351/pjo.v37i3.1226

7. Mor JM, Matthaei M, Schrumpf H. Transcanalicular laser dacryocystorhinostomy for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction:an audit of 104 patients. Eur J Med Res 2018; 23(1): 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-018-0355-4

8. Mor JM, Guo Y, Koch KR, Heindl LM. Transcanalicular Diode Laser-assisted Dacryocystorhinostomy for the Treatment of Primary Acquired Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. J Vis Exp 2017; (128): 55981. https://doi.org/10.3791/55981

9. Kominek P, Cervenka S, Pniak T, Zelenik K, Tomaskova H, Matousek P. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment was congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011; 249(11): 1729-1733.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-011-1700-2

10. Saleh GM, Litwin AS, Samaras K, Tossounis CM, Gauba V, McLean CJ. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in External Dacryocystorhinostomy for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Orbit 2009; 28(2-3): 110-114.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01676830802656711

11. Yalaz M, Ozcan AA, Akcali C, Soylu L. Lacrimal intubation with the Ritleng system in recurrent congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2004; 66(1): 35-37. https://doi.org/10.1159/000077231

12. Awais M, Naqvi SAH, Akram A, Shahid M. Transcanalicular diode laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy: A breakthrough in the treatment of acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Pak J Med Sci 2020; 36(4): 804-807.

https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.4.1906

13. Pinto C, Queirós T, Ferreira C. Transcanalicular Diode Laser-Assisted Dacryocystorhinostomy - Success Rates and Related Factors During 3 Years of Follow-Up. Semin Ophthalmol 2021; 36(7): 501-506. https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2021.1890785

14. Tokat T, Tokat S, Kusbeci T. Long-term outcomes of transcanalicular laser dacryocystorhinostomy versus endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy and a review of the literature. Niger J Clin Pract 2023; 26(8): 1069-1074.

https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_349_22

15. Nuhoglu F, Gurbuz B, Eltutar K. Long-term outcomes after transcanalicular laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2012 Aug; 32(4): 258-262.

16. Yener HI, Ozcimen M. Long-Term Results in Transcanalicular Laser and External Dacryocystorhinostomy. Beyoglu Eye J 2020; 5(1): 22-25. https://doi.org/10.14744/bej.2019.70299

17. Al-Asadi S Z, Al-Abbasi A M. Efficacy of Diode Laser Transcanalicular Dacryocystorhinostomy in Acquired nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. Gomal J Med Sci 2011; 9: 152-155.

18. Yildirim Y, Kar T, Topal T. Comparison of Transcanalicular Multimode Laser Dacryocystorhinostomy with and without Silicone Tube Intubation. J Ophthalmol 2016; 2016: 6719529.

http://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6719529

19. Dogan R, Meric A, Ozsütcü M, Yenigun A. Diode laser-assisted endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: a comparison of three different combinations of adjunctive procedures. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 270(8): 2255-2261.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2351-1

20. Kar T, Yildirim Y, Topal T, Çolakoğlu K, Ünal MH. Efficacy of adjunctive mitomycin C in transcanalicular diode laser dacryocystorhinostomy in different age Groups. Eur J Ophthalmol 2016; 26(1): 1-5.

https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000632

21. Kashkouli MB, Kempster RC, Galloway GD, Beigi B. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular silicone intubation for nasolacrimal duct stenosis in adults. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 21(2): 142-147.

https://doi.org/10.1097/01.iop.0000155524.04390.7b

22. Chi YC, Lai CC. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with short-term, pushed-type bicanalicular intubation vs. pulled-type monocanalicular intubation for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Front Med 2022; 9: 946083.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.946083

23. Ozgur O R, Akmaz B, Kandemir B. Monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone tube intubation results in patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. South Clin Ist Eurasia. 2017; 28: 130-134. https://doi.org/10.14744/jkartaltr.2016.58265