Lacrimal stenting versus three-snip punctoplasty for treatment of punctal stenosis or occlusion: an open- label, randomized clinical trial.

Q2 Medicine
Haitham Rashdan, Ali Mahmoud Ismail, Mohammed Ezz-Eldawla, Mohammed Iqbal
{"title":"Lacrimal stenting versus three-snip punctoplasty for treatment of punctal stenosis or occlusion: an open- label, randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Haitham Rashdan,&nbsp;Ali Mahmoud Ismail,&nbsp;Mohammed Ezz-Eldawla,&nbsp;Mohammed Iqbal","doi":"10.51329/mehdi-ophthal1418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the short-term anatomical and functional outcomes of, as well as patient satisfaction with, lacrimal stenting and three-snip punctoplasty for the treatment of punctal stenosis or occlusion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this open-label, randomized clinical trial, we included 50 eyes of 30 patients diagnosed with punctal stenosis or occlusion. They were randomly allocated to two groups of 25 eyes each, using central telephone randomization. Group A underwent a lacrimal stenting procedure and was subdivided into two subgroups: Group A1 (13 eyes) received polyvinylpyrrolidone-coated perforated punctal plugs, and Group A2 (12 eyes) received closed intubation using a bicanalicular silicon tube. Group B included 25 eyes that underwent three- snip punctoplasty. All eyes were examined after 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Postoperative anatomical success assessing the punctum size, functional success using the fluorescein disappearance test (FDT), and patient satisfaction based on epiphora scoring were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both study groups were comparable in terms of sex and age distribution. Compared to Group B, Group A had a significantly larger punctum size at one, three, and 6-month postoperatively (<i>P</i> = 0.009, 0.01, and 0.02, respectively). The difference in FDT results was significant between the two groups at all follow-up visits (<i>P</i> = 0.008, 0.0001, 0.003, and 0.002, at postoperative one week, one-months, three-month, and si-month, respectively). Likewise, patient satisfaction was significantly different between both groups at all follow-up visits (<i>P</i> = 0.007, 0.001, 0.005, and 0.002, at postoperative one week, one-months, three-month, and si-month, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lacrimal stenting is an effective method for the treatment of punctal stenosis or occlusion. Overall, the FDT results and patient satisfaction outcomes were significantly better.</p>","PeriodicalId":36524,"journal":{"name":"Medical Hypothesis, Discovery, and Innovation in Ophthalmology","volume":"10 1","pages":"24-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/89/b7/mehdiophth-10-024.PMC10460217.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Hypothesis, Discovery, and Innovation in Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51329/mehdi-ophthal1418","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To compare the short-term anatomical and functional outcomes of, as well as patient satisfaction with, lacrimal stenting and three-snip punctoplasty for the treatment of punctal stenosis or occlusion.

Methods: In this open-label, randomized clinical trial, we included 50 eyes of 30 patients diagnosed with punctal stenosis or occlusion. They were randomly allocated to two groups of 25 eyes each, using central telephone randomization. Group A underwent a lacrimal stenting procedure and was subdivided into two subgroups: Group A1 (13 eyes) received polyvinylpyrrolidone-coated perforated punctal plugs, and Group A2 (12 eyes) received closed intubation using a bicanalicular silicon tube. Group B included 25 eyes that underwent three- snip punctoplasty. All eyes were examined after 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Postoperative anatomical success assessing the punctum size, functional success using the fluorescein disappearance test (FDT), and patient satisfaction based on epiphora scoring were recorded.

Results: Both study groups were comparable in terms of sex and age distribution. Compared to Group B, Group A had a significantly larger punctum size at one, three, and 6-month postoperatively (P = 0.009, 0.01, and 0.02, respectively). The difference in FDT results was significant between the two groups at all follow-up visits (P = 0.008, 0.0001, 0.003, and 0.002, at postoperative one week, one-months, three-month, and si-month, respectively). Likewise, patient satisfaction was significantly different between both groups at all follow-up visits (P = 0.007, 0.001, 0.005, and 0.002, at postoperative one week, one-months, three-month, and si-month, respectively).

Conclusions: Lacrimal stenting is an effective method for the treatment of punctal stenosis or occlusion. Overall, the FDT results and patient satisfaction outcomes were significantly better.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

泪道支架植入与三剪点状成形术治疗点状狭窄或闭塞:一项开放标签、随机临床试验。
背景:比较泪道支架置入术和三剪泪道成形术治疗泪道狭窄或闭塞的短期解剖和功能结果以及患者满意度。方法:在这项开放标签的随机临床试验中,我们纳入了30例诊断为点状狭窄或闭塞的患者的50只眼。他们被随机分为两组,每组25只眼睛,采用中央电话随机法。A组接受泪道支架植入术,并分为两个亚组:A1组(13只眼)接受聚乙烯吡罗烷酮涂层穿孔点状塞,A2组(12只眼)接受双管硅管闭式插管。B组25只眼行三剪眼点状成形术。术后1天、1周、1个月、3个月、6个月复查。记录术后解剖成功评估点大小,荧光素消失试验(FDT)功能成功,以及基于表显评分的患者满意度。结果:两个研究组在性别和年龄分布方面具有可比性。与B组相比,A组术后1、3、6个月的穿刺点面积明显增大(P分别为0.009、0.01、0.02)。两组在术后1周、1个月、3个月和1个月随访时FDT结果差异均有统计学意义(P = 0.008、0.0001、0.003和0.002)。同样,两组患者在术后1周、1个月、3个月和1个月的所有随访中满意度均有显著差异(P = 0.007、0.001、0.005和0.002)。结论:泪道支架植入术是治疗泪点狭窄或闭塞的有效方法。总体而言,FDT结果和患者满意度结果明显更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信