Br J Ophthalmol 96:671-673 doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300670
  • Clinical science
  • Original article

Use of mini-monoka stents for punctal/canalicular stenosis

  1. T McMullan
  1. Northampton General Hospital, Northampton, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr R N Hussain, Department of Ophthalmology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Infirmary Square, Leicester LE1 5WW, UK; rumanahussain{at}
  1. Contributors RNH: data collection and write up; HK: data collection; TM: supervisory role.

  • Accepted 12 November 2011
  • Published Online First 12 January 2012


Background Proximal lacrimal system stenosis may cause debilitating epiphora and recurrent ocular infections. Mini-monoka stents are primarily used in the management of canalicular lacerations. Evidence regarding their use to treat punctal/canalicular stenosis is sparse. Compared with dacryocystorhinostomy, a punctocanaliculoplasty with mini-monoka stenting is quicker, less invasive with reduced postoperative complications/recovery time.

Aims To assess the effectiveness of mini-monoka punctocanaliculoplasty for treatment of punctal/canalicular stenosis.

Methods A retrospective case note analysis was performed on 77 consecutive patients (123 eyes).

Results 73% of eyes had punctal stenosis, 72% had canalicular stenosis; 46% had a combination of the above. 20% had some degree of lid laxity and 29% had nasolacrimal duct stenosis. 101 eyes (82%) had significant improvement in symptoms and were discharged without further intervention. Excluding the patients with structural comorbidity the success rate improved to 88%.

Conclusions Mini-monoka punctocanaliculoplasty is an effective, safe, simple and relatively non-invasive treatment strategy for the management of epiphora secondary to punctal and/or canalicular stenosis.


  • This study was presented as a poster at the Royal College of Ophthalmologists Annual Congress 2011, Birmingham, UK.

  • Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None.

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