Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2024
Canalicular laceration repair using a novel bicanalicular silicone stent versus traditional bicanalicular stent with nasal fixation.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Cai Weihao, Wang Hongxi, Zhou Yekai, Zheng Xin, Li Zeyi, Cai Jianhao, Zhou Yuansheng, Ma Yueting, Lin Yongdong
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effects of two types of lacrimal stents in the repair of canalicular lacerations.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with canalicular lacerations between January 2017 and December 2022. The canalicular reconstruction was performed using either the Runshi-RS bicanalicular silicone stent or the traditional bicanalicular silicone stent with nasal fixation, under a surgical microscope. The stent was placed for 3 months, and patients were followed up for more than 3 months after extubation. The anatomical and functional success rates were compared between the two groups. Anatomical success was assessed through diagnostic probing and irrigation of lacrimal passage, while functional success was determined by the patient's subjective symptoms of epiphora.
RESULTS: The study included 315 patients (315 eyes) undergoing canalicular laceration repair. The Runshi-RS stent was utilized in 147 patients (46.7%), while the traditional stent with nasal fixation was employed in 168 patients (53.3%). The anatomical success rates (99.3% vs 98.8%, P = 0.642) and functional success rates (87.2% vs 88.1%, P = 0.926) were similar between the RS group and the traditional stent group. Postoperative complications were fewer (4.1% vs 10.1%, P = 0.04) and the operation time was shorter (67.1 ± 35.3 min vs 86.1 ± 43.4 min, P < 0.001) in the RS group.
CONCLUSION: The Runshi-RS tube demonstrates favorable surgical outcomes for the repair of canalicular lacerations. Compared to the traditional stent with nasal fixation, the RS stent allows for shorter operation times and fewer postoperative complications in the repair of canalicular lacerations.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with canalicular lacerations between January 2017 and December 2022. The canalicular reconstruction was performed using either the Runshi-RS bicanalicular silicone stent or the traditional bicanalicular silicone stent with nasal fixation, under a surgical microscope. The stent was placed for 3 months, and patients were followed up for more than 3 months after extubation. The anatomical and functional success rates were compared between the two groups. Anatomical success was assessed through diagnostic probing and irrigation of lacrimal passage, while functional success was determined by the patient's subjective symptoms of epiphora.
RESULTS: The study included 315 patients (315 eyes) undergoing canalicular laceration repair. The Runshi-RS stent was utilized in 147 patients (46.7%), while the traditional stent with nasal fixation was employed in 168 patients (53.3%). The anatomical success rates (99.3% vs 98.8%, P = 0.642) and functional success rates (87.2% vs 88.1%, P = 0.926) were similar between the RS group and the traditional stent group. Postoperative complications were fewer (4.1% vs 10.1%, P = 0.04) and the operation time was shorter (67.1 ± 35.3 min vs 86.1 ± 43.4 min, P < 0.001) in the RS group.
CONCLUSION: The Runshi-RS tube demonstrates favorable surgical outcomes for the repair of canalicular lacerations. Compared to the traditional stent with nasal fixation, the RS stent allows for shorter operation times and fewer postoperative complications in the repair of canalicular lacerations.