Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026
Plug or Punctoplasty (POPPY) Study: Perforated Punctal Plug Versus Three-Snip Punctoplasty in the Treatment of Acquired Punctal Stenosis.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Vekinis John S, Ah-Kye Laura, Hoffman Jeremy J, Minocha Amal, Yang Elizabeth, A'Hern Roger, Fayers Tessa
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Acquired punctal stenosis (APS) represents a common cause of epiphora and a reason for attendance at oculoplastic clinics. The three-snip punctoplasty is the mainstay of APS treatment, although perforated punctal plugs (PPPs) represent an alternative, offering reversibility and less burden on minor-operation lists. This study aimed to identify if PPPs are an acceptable alternative to the three-snip punctoplasty through comparison of functional, anatomical, and quality of life outcomes.
METHODS: Participants with APS were randomized to receive either a three-snip punctoplasty or PPP in this assessor-masked study. Participants were followed up for 1 to 2 years, with a total of 3 follow-up visits. Data collected included patient demographics, slit-lamp examination findings, punctum dimensions on punctal optical coherence tomography, and results of Watery Eye Quality of Life questionnaire assessment.
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were recruited, with 25 attending the first postoperative visit and 32 providing final follow-up data via a telephone questionnaire. Both groups had significant reductions in weekly eye watering episodes and total Watery Eye Quality of Life scores, with no significant difference between groups. Only the three-snip group had a significant improvement in their simple 1 to 10 quality-of-life rating, with a significantly greater improvement than the PPP group. Following the intervention, three-snip had wider punctal optical coherence tomography and Kashkouli grade.
CONCLUSIONS: Both punctoplasty and PPPs are effective APS interventions. Despite greater enlargement to punctal anatomy following three-snip punctoplasty, PPPs, and three-snip punctoplasty both improve epiphora, although three-snip punctoplasty may provide a greater improvement to quality of life.
METHODS: Participants with APS were randomized to receive either a three-snip punctoplasty or PPP in this assessor-masked study. Participants were followed up for 1 to 2 years, with a total of 3 follow-up visits. Data collected included patient demographics, slit-lamp examination findings, punctum dimensions on punctal optical coherence tomography, and results of Watery Eye Quality of Life questionnaire assessment.
RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were recruited, with 25 attending the first postoperative visit and 32 providing final follow-up data via a telephone questionnaire. Both groups had significant reductions in weekly eye watering episodes and total Watery Eye Quality of Life scores, with no significant difference between groups. Only the three-snip group had a significant improvement in their simple 1 to 10 quality-of-life rating, with a significantly greater improvement than the PPP group. Following the intervention, three-snip had wider punctal optical coherence tomography and Kashkouli grade.
CONCLUSIONS: Both punctoplasty and PPPs are effective APS interventions. Despite greater enlargement to punctal anatomy following three-snip punctoplasty, PPPs, and three-snip punctoplasty both improve epiphora, although three-snip punctoplasty may provide a greater improvement to quality of life.