Long-term Results of Silicone Tube Intubation in Incomplete Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction (NLDO)

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of long-term follow-up of silicone tube intubation in patients with acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) that is incomplete. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of the outcomes of silicone intubation performed between 1998 and 2003. During that period, we performed silicone intubation on 109 eyes, but only 45 eyes that completed at least 6 months of follow-up were included in the analysis. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 30.4 months (6~76 months), and silicone tubes remained in place an average of 6.5 months (1~18months). The success rate, which is defined as the improvement of epiphora symptoms with patent nasolacrimal irrigation. CONCLUSIONS: Silicone tube intubation is a simple, cost-effective, and beneficial treatment for patients, but the recurrence rate increases over time, especially several years after the operation.

Diagnostic Ability of Scanning Laser Polarimetry with Enhanced Corneal Compensation in the Eye with Typical and Atypical Retadation Pattern

PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between the SLP-VCC parameters and the SLP-ECC parameters in the eyes with typical retardation pattern (TRP) and atypical retardation pattern (ARP), and the sensitivities and specificities of the SLP-VCC parameters and the SLP-ECC parameters in the eye with TRP and ARP. METHODS: In this prospective study, 72 eyes with TRP images (30 glaucomatous and 42 normal eyes) and 53 eyes with ARP images (28 glaucomatous and 25 normal eyes) were recruited. For each group, we analyzed relationship between each parameters of GDx-VCC and GDx-ECC and the diagnostic ability of GDx-ECC by using the ROC curve. RESULTS: In the eyes with TRP, TSNIT average was significantly lower by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in the control group. Inferior average was significantly higher by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both glaucomatous and normal group. TSNIT standard deviation was significantly higher by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both groups. NFI was significantly lower by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both groups. TSS (typical scan score) was significantly higher by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both groups. In the eyes with ARP, TSNIT average was significantly lower by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both groups. Superior and Inferior average was not different between GDx-ECC and GDx-VCC. TSNIT standard deviation was significantly higher by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both groups. NFI was not different between groups. TSS was significantly higher by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both groups. Comparison of ROC curve for the SLP parameters revealed no difference between VCC and ECC. TSNIT standard deviation, however, showed relatively high value in GDx-ECC compared with GDx-VCC. CONCLUSIONS: GDx-ECC has comparable diagnostic ability in discriminating glaucomatous and normal eyes with GDx-VCC and TSNIT standard deviation by the GDx-ECC algorithm could be a useful parameter in discriminating glaucomatous and normal eyes.