Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular annular intubation for treatment of lacrimal canalicular laceration

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of monocanalicular and bicanalicular annular intubation for treatment of lacrimal canalicular laceration. Patients and methods This is a retrospective review of the medical records of 52 patients for whom primary repair of lacrimal canalicular laceration was done. The patients were allocated into two groups. Group I included 26 patients who underwent primary repair with monocanalicular intubation while group II included 26 patients who underwent primary repair with bicanalicular annular intubation. Three months after removal of the stent, negative fluorescein dye disappearance test and patency of the canaliculus on lacrimal irrigation were defined as anatomical success, while functional success was defined as absence of epiphora. Complications like stent prolapse, granuloma formation, and medial canthal deformity were recorded. Results Complete anatomical success was achieved in 18 (69.2%) patients in group I and in 21 (80.8%) patients in group II, with no statistically significant difference (P=0.594). Complete functional success was achieved in 20 (76.9%) patients in group I and in 22 (84.6%) patients in group II, with no statistically significant difference (P=0.683). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the postoperative complications including punctum granuloma, punctum slitting, and medial canthal region deformities (P>0.05). Conclusion Both monocanalicular intubation and bicanalicular annular intubation were safe and effective for treatment of lacrimal canalicular laceration with no statistically significant difference regarding the anatomical and functional outcomes as well as postoperative complications.

Keywords

• bicanalicular intubation
• lacrimal canalicular laceration
• mini-monoka stent
• monocanalicular intubation
• pigtail probe