Article Text

PDF
Clinical science
Prospective randomised comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation
  1. R Saiju1,
  2. L J Morse2,
  3. D Weinberg3,
  4. M K Shrestha1,
  5. S Ruit1
  1. 1
    Tilganga Eye Centre, Kathmandu, Nepal
  2. 2
    University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont, USA
  3. 3
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr R Saiju, Oculoplastic and Lacrimal Clinic, Tilganga Eye Centre, P.O. Box #561, Kathmandu, Nepal; rsaiju{at}tilganga.com.np

Abstract

Background/aims: The aim of the study was to compare surgical outcomes of external dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) with and without silastic intubation for treatment of primary uncomplicated nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO).

Design: The study was a prospective randomised trial conducted at the Tilganga Eye Centre (Kathmandu, Nepal).

Methods: One-hundred consecutive patients with uncomplicated primary NLDO were randomly assigned into two groups (44 underwent DCR with silastic intubation and 56 underwent DCR without intubation). Patients were re-assessed at 1 week, 6 weeks and 6 months after surgery. Success was defined objectively by irrigation of the puncta without regurgitation and subjectively by the absence of epiphora or discharge.

Results: The success rate at 6 months was 90% for DCR with silastic intubation and 87% for DCR without silastic intubation. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.77). No complications were encountered in either group. Silicone tubes increased surgical cost by 20% at the Tilganga Eye Centre.

Conclusion: DCR without silastic intubation is less expensive than DCR with silastic intubation in primary uncomplicated NLDO, and has a similar success rate. DCR with silastic intubation may create increased burden for patients in the form of more post-surgical follow-up visits. In cases of uncomplicated primary NLDO, the use of silastic intubation in DCR may be unnecessary.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was obtained from the Tilganga Eye Centre ethical review committee.

  • Patient consent Obtained

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • At a glance
    Harminder S Dua Arun D Singh