The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2024
Comparative Analysis of Silicone Tube Intubation Versus Probing and Balloon Dilation for Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное 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.
Alruwaili Rahaf, Alanazi Farhan, Alrashidi Ali, Hazazi Mohammed, Alenezi Mazyad
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) is a pediatric disorder with a wide range of pathology. If untreated, the condition may end up with serious complications. Multiple treatment options for CNLDO exist throughout the literature, and there is an ongoing debate on the best intervention for each disease subgroup and the best timing of such interventions. This study compares the success and failure rates of silicone tube intubation (STI) against probing and balloon dilation (BD).
METHODS: The authors searched the literature for relevant articles using PubMed, Scopus, web of Science, and Cochrane Library until January 2024. Using RevMan 5.4, the authors compared STI's success and failure rates to probing and BD using risk ratios (RRs) and a random-effect model. In addition, the complication rate of monocanalicular intubation (MCI) versus bicanalicular intubation (BCI) was investigated. The authors used the leave-one-out method to check for influential studies and to resolve heterogeneity.
RESULTS: The screening process resulted in 23 eligible articles for inclusion in the authors' review. Silicone tube intubation had a higher chance of resolving the symptoms of CNLDO than probing (RR = 1.11; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.20; P = 0.004) while having less risk of surgical failure (RR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.76; P = 0.002]. Monocanalicular intubation showed no statistically significant difference when compared with BCI in terms of surgical success and failure; however, MCI had a lower risk of complications (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.97; P = 0.04). In addition, STI did not demonstrate any significant difference from BD.
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in success/failure between MCI and BCI; monocanalicular had fewer complications. Silicone tube intubation did better in terms of surgical success than probing, especially in children over 12 months, suggesting that it is the preferred intervention for older patients with CNLDO.
METHODS: The authors searched the literature for relevant articles using PubMed, Scopus, web of Science, and Cochrane Library until January 2024. Using RevMan 5.4, the authors compared STI's success and failure rates to probing and BD using risk ratios (RRs) and a random-effect model. In addition, the complication rate of monocanalicular intubation (MCI) versus bicanalicular intubation (BCI) was investigated. The authors used the leave-one-out method to check for influential studies and to resolve heterogeneity.
RESULTS: The screening process resulted in 23 eligible articles for inclusion in the authors' review. Silicone tube intubation had a higher chance of resolving the symptoms of CNLDO than probing (RR = 1.11; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.20; P = 0.004) while having less risk of surgical failure (RR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.76; P = 0.002]. Monocanalicular intubation showed no statistically significant difference when compared with BCI in terms of surgical success and failure; however, MCI had a lower risk of complications (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.97; P = 0.04). In addition, STI did not demonstrate any significant difference from BD.
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in success/failure between MCI and BCI; monocanalicular had fewer complications. Silicone tube intubation did better in terms of surgical success than probing, especially in children over 12 months, suggesting that it is the preferred intervention for older patients with CNLDO.