ABSTRACT
@#AIM: To evaluate the clinical effecacy of the RS-1 silicone tube and the conventional silicone tube in the management of pediatric canalicular lacerations.<p>METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 48 pediatric patients(48 eyes)with canalicular lacerations admitted for primary repair in the Department of Ocular Trauma of Hebei Eye Hospital from January 2015 to June 2018. The patients were divided into two groups according to the treatment of method: Group A(25 patients, the conventional silicone tube), Group B(23 patients, the RS-1 silicone tube). The management of pediatric canalicular lacerations were performed under general anesthesia. The silicone tube was removed about 3mo after surgery. The surgical time, clinical efficacy and complications were compared.<p>RESULTS: The mean surgical time between the two groups was 44.92±14.45min in Group A and 31.78±7.40min in Group B, which was statistically significant difference(<i>t</i>=4.02, <i>P</i><0.01). The clinical efficacy of the two groups was compared. Group A: 20 patients were cured(80%), 2 patients were improved(8%), 3 patients were failed(12%), and the functional success rate was 88%. Group B: 19 patients were cured(82%), 2 patients were improved(9%), 2 patients were failed(9%), the functional success rate was 91%, which was not statistically significant difference(χ2=0.14, <i>P</i>>0.05). The incidence of complications(32% <i>vs</i> 9%)including lower lacrimal point and mild eyelid eversion(1 patient 4% <i>vs</i> 1 patient 4%), slit canaliculus(2 patients 8% <i>vs</i> 1 patient 4%), early tube extrusion(3 patients 12% <i>vs</i> 0%), and nasal mucosal injury(3 patients 12% <i>vs</i> 0%)in Groups A and B, respectively, were comparable. There was statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications between the groups(χ2=3.94, <i>P</i><0.05).<p>CONCLUSION: There is no statistically significant difference with the two different types of silicone tube, which have good clinical efficacy, in the management of pediatric canalicular lacerations. But the RS-1 silicone tube is easier to operate, shorter surgical time, less complications and easier to removed.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We report a simple and effective method of identifying the medial cut end of lower canalicular laceration cases. METHODS: Twenty-seven eyes with lower canalicular lacerations as a result of trauma were involved in the study. Surgery was performed within 48 hours after injury for canalicular reconstruction. Upper canalicular probing was utilized to identify the medial cut end of deep canalicular lacerations when difficulties were encountered. Total time from the initiation of the probing procedure to the identification of the medial cut end of the lower canaliculus was measured. RESULTS: A total of 27 eyes with lower canalicular lacerations were reconstructed. In 20 eyes, the medial lacerated end was located by upper canalicular probing. The mean time from initiation of the probing procedure to identification of the medial cut end of the lacerated canaliculus was 2 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that upper canalicular probing in patients with lower canalicular lacerations significantly reduces the time from the initiation of the operation to the identification of the medial cut end of the lower canaliculus.