Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2024
Bicanalicular stent versus mono-canalicular stent for post-oncological lacrimal duct reconstruction: A retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bai Fang, Tao Hai, Wang Lihua, Wang Peng, Zhou Xibin, Wang Fei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Bicanalicular and mono-canalicular stent intubations were developed for post-oncological lacrimal duct reconstruction; however, comparative analysis between the two surgical modalities is lacking. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes between the two types of stents at a single institution.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Briefly, 75 eyes of 75 patients who underwent lacrimal reconstruction combined with lacrimal stent intubation were enrolled in this study and were divided into bicanalicular stent intubation and mono-canalicular stent intubation groups. The clinical characteristics, follow-up, and prognosis were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Bicanalicular and mono-canalicular stent intubations were performed in 36 eyes (36 patients; Group A) and 39 eyes (39 patients; Group B), respectively. The difference in stent duration between Groups A and B was statistically significant. Three eyes in Group A and one eye in Group B experienced postoperative stent prolapse. Two eyes in Group B showed punctum stenosis and one eye had punctal ectropion. Seven eyes in Group A had canalicular slitting. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean preoperative Munk scores between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean Munk scores and mean VAS scores at 1 week postoperatively, before stent removal, and 3 months after stent removal between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Bicanalicular and mono-canalicular stent intubations were equally effective in ensuring lacrimal duct patency and in preventing postoperative epiphora. Appropriate cases and stent selection can reduce the incidence of postoperative complications.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Briefly, 75 eyes of 75 patients who underwent lacrimal reconstruction combined with lacrimal stent intubation were enrolled in this study and were divided into bicanalicular stent intubation and mono-canalicular stent intubation groups. The clinical characteristics, follow-up, and prognosis were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Bicanalicular and mono-canalicular stent intubations were performed in 36 eyes (36 patients; Group A) and 39 eyes (39 patients; Group B), respectively. The difference in stent duration between Groups A and B was statistically significant. Three eyes in Group A and one eye in Group B experienced postoperative stent prolapse. Two eyes in Group B showed punctum stenosis and one eye had punctal ectropion. Seven eyes in Group A had canalicular slitting. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean preoperative Munk scores between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean Munk scores and mean VAS scores at 1 week postoperatively, before stent removal, and 3 months after stent removal between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Bicanalicular and mono-canalicular stent intubations were equally effective in ensuring lacrimal duct patency and in preventing postoperative epiphora. Appropriate cases and stent selection can reduce the incidence of postoperative complications.