Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2009
Prevalence of canaliculitis requiring removal of SmartPlugs.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hill Robert H, Norton Sylvia W, Bersani Thomas A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To report the first accurate prevalence of canaliculitis associated with the use of the SmartPlug.
METHODS: All patients from a single private ophthalmology practice who received SmartPlugs from 2002 to 2007 were identified. All patients from the private ophthalmology practice that developed canaliculitis secondary to SmartPlug insertion were referred to a single private ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery office. A retrospective review of those 17 patients was performed.
RESULTS: From 2002 to 2007, a total of 235 patients were identified from a single private ophthalmology practice with a total of 402 SmartPlugs inserted. Of those 235 patients, 17 developed canaliculitis and were referred to a single private ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery office. The prevalence of canaliculitis per patient was 7.23%. The prevalence of canaliculitis per SmartPlug inserted was 4.73%. The average time from SmartPlugs insertion to onset of symptoms was 3 years. All affected patients required canaliculotomy and plug removal.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study reporting the prevalence of canaliculitis associated with the use of the SmartPlug. All affected patients required surgical intervention, after which many continued to have dry eye and one required bilateral Jones tubes. Ophthalmologists using the SmartPlug for the treatment of dry eye syndrome should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of their use.
METHODS: All patients from a single private ophthalmology practice who received SmartPlugs from 2002 to 2007 were identified. All patients from the private ophthalmology practice that developed canaliculitis secondary to SmartPlug insertion were referred to a single private ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery office. A retrospective review of those 17 patients was performed.
RESULTS: From 2002 to 2007, a total of 235 patients were identified from a single private ophthalmology practice with a total of 402 SmartPlugs inserted. Of those 235 patients, 17 developed canaliculitis and were referred to a single private ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery office. The prevalence of canaliculitis per patient was 7.23%. The prevalence of canaliculitis per SmartPlug inserted was 4.73%. The average time from SmartPlugs insertion to onset of symptoms was 3 years. All affected patients required canaliculotomy and plug removal.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study reporting the prevalence of canaliculitis associated with the use of the SmartPlug. All affected patients required surgical intervention, after which many continued to have dry eye and one required bilateral Jones tubes. Ophthalmologists using the SmartPlug for the treatment of dry eye syndrome should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of their use.