Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2014
Conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy and lacrimal sinus diversion via sinopsys surgical lacrimal stent: cadaveric proof of concept.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Gonzalez Mithra, Oliver Christopher, Schomer Donald, Willoughby Brian
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine the viability of lacrimal sinus diversion by using a novel Sinopsys Surgical Lacrimal Stent.
METHODS: Two disarticulated cadaveric heads were used in the laboratory. First, bilateral conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomies (CDCR) were performed by using a traditional Pyrex Jones tube and the Sinopsys Surgical Lacrimal Stent. The fluiditics were then evaluated by using contrast agent and fluroscopy. Subsequently, conjunctivoethmoidectomies (CE) and conjunctivomaxillectomies (CM) were performed by using the Sinopsys Surgical Lacrimal Stent, of which the fluiditics were also studied.
RESULTS: The conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy (CDCR) placement experience of the Jones tube and the Sinopsys Surgical Lacrimal Stent were similar. The CDCR fluiditics as measured by using contrast agent and fluoroscopy were identical with each draining 0.5 mL over 5 to 10 seconds. Placement of the Sinopsys Surgical Lacrimal Stent in the 4 ethmoid (CE) and 4 maxillary (CM) sinuses was similar to the CDCR experience. Fluiditics of lacrimal sinus diversion were similar to CDCR with drainage of 0.5 mL over 5 seconds.
CONCLUSIONS: The Sinopsys Surgical Lacrimal Stent has flow characteristics that are similar to a Pyrex Jones tube. Drainage in the nose via a CDCR procedure is similar to drainage in the ethmoid and maxillary sinuses via a CE and CM, respectively.
METHODS: Two disarticulated cadaveric heads were used in the laboratory. First, bilateral conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomies (CDCR) were performed by using a traditional Pyrex Jones tube and the Sinopsys Surgical Lacrimal Stent. The fluiditics were then evaluated by using contrast agent and fluroscopy. Subsequently, conjunctivoethmoidectomies (CE) and conjunctivomaxillectomies (CM) were performed by using the Sinopsys Surgical Lacrimal Stent, of which the fluiditics were also studied.
RESULTS: The conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy (CDCR) placement experience of the Jones tube and the Sinopsys Surgical Lacrimal Stent were similar. The CDCR fluiditics as measured by using contrast agent and fluoroscopy were identical with each draining 0.5 mL over 5 to 10 seconds. Placement of the Sinopsys Surgical Lacrimal Stent in the 4 ethmoid (CE) and 4 maxillary (CM) sinuses was similar to the CDCR experience. Fluiditics of lacrimal sinus diversion were similar to CDCR with drainage of 0.5 mL over 5 seconds.
CONCLUSIONS: The Sinopsys Surgical Lacrimal Stent has flow characteristics that are similar to a Pyrex Jones tube. Drainage in the nose via a CDCR procedure is similar to drainage in the ethmoid and maxillary sinuses via a CE and CM, respectively.