Endoscopic-guided monocanalicular versus bicanalicular Ritleng intubation for treating congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in patients aged 24-53 months.

Q3 Medicine
Oman Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-06-24 eCollection Date: 2025-05-01 DOI:10.4103/ojo.ojo_250_24
Walid Mohamed Abdalla, Eman N Sultan
{"title":"Endoscopic-guided monocanalicular versus bicanalicular Ritleng intubation for treating congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in patients aged 24-53 months.","authors":"Walid Mohamed Abdalla, Eman N Sultan","doi":"10.4103/ojo.ojo_250_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) is a common condition in neonates, often requiring intervention when conservative treatments and simple probing fail. This study aimed to explore the efficiency and safety of endoscopic-guided bicanalicular (BC) and monocanalicular (MC) Ritleng intubation in treating CNLDO.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized comparative study was conducted between 2007 and 2022. The study included a total of 90 patients aged 24-53 months who had either failed probing or presented late with CNLDO. The participants were divided into two groups: 45 treated with BC and the other 45 with MC Ritleng intubation. Surgical procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 1 week postoperatively, then at 1 month, and 3 months after stent removal. Finally, postoperative outcomes were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The clinical success rates were comparable, with BC achieving 93.3% and MC achieving 92.2% (<i>P</i> = 0.68). BC intubation was associated with a higher complication rate (28.9%) compared to MC (4.4%), with a statistically significant difference (<i>P</i> = 0.004). The study also revealed the absence of significant associations between the incidence of complications and age, gender, or preexisting conditions (<i>P</i> = 0.90).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both BC and MC Ritleng intubation are effective treatments for late-presenting CNLDO and cases following failed probing. However, MC intubation stands out as a safer and quicker option, significantly reducing the risk of complications. This study emphasizes the advantages of MC Ritleng intubation for pediatric patients with CNLDO.</p>","PeriodicalId":19461,"journal":{"name":"Oman Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"18 2","pages":"193-197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12258858/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oman Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ojo.ojo_250_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) is a common condition in neonates, often requiring intervention when conservative treatments and simple probing fail. This study aimed to explore the efficiency and safety of endoscopic-guided bicanalicular (BC) and monocanalicular (MC) Ritleng intubation in treating CNLDO.

Methodology: This multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized comparative study was conducted between 2007 and 2022. The study included a total of 90 patients aged 24-53 months who had either failed probing or presented late with CNLDO. The participants were divided into two groups: 45 treated with BC and the other 45 with MC Ritleng intubation. Surgical procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 1 week postoperatively, then at 1 month, and 3 months after stent removal. Finally, postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

Results: The clinical success rates were comparable, with BC achieving 93.3% and MC achieving 92.2% (P = 0.68). BC intubation was associated with a higher complication rate (28.9%) compared to MC (4.4%), with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.004). The study also revealed the absence of significant associations between the incidence of complications and age, gender, or preexisting conditions (P = 0.90).

Conclusions: Both BC and MC Ritleng intubation are effective treatments for late-presenting CNLDO and cases following failed probing. However, MC intubation stands out as a safer and quicker option, significantly reducing the risk of complications. This study emphasizes the advantages of MC Ritleng intubation for pediatric patients with CNLDO.

内镜引导下单管与双管Ritleng插管治疗24-53月龄先天性鼻泪管阻塞。
背景:先天性鼻泪管梗阻(CNLDO)是新生儿的常见病,当保守治疗和简单探查失败时,通常需要干预。本研究旨在探讨内镜引导下双管(BC)和单管(MC) Ritleng插管治疗CNLDO的有效性和安全性。方法:这项多中心、前瞻性、非随机比较研究于2007年至2022年进行。该研究共纳入了90名年龄在24-53个月之间的患者,这些患者要么是探查失败,要么是晚期出现CNLDO。参与者被分为两组:45人接受BC治疗,另外45人接受MC Ritleng插管。手术在全身麻醉下进行。随访时间分别为术后1周、1个月和3个月。最后,对术后结果进行分析。结果:临床成功率比较,BC为93.3%,MC为92.2% (P = 0.68)。BC插管并发症发生率(28.9%)高于MC(4.4%),差异有统计学意义(P = 0.004)。该研究还显示,并发症的发生率与年龄、性别或既往病史之间没有显著关联(P = 0.90)。结论:BC和MC Ritleng插管是治疗晚期CNLDO和探查失败病例的有效方法。然而,MC插管作为一种更安全、更快的选择,显著降低了并发症的风险。本研究强调了MC Ritleng插管在小儿CNLDO患者中的优势。
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
Oman Journal of Ophthalmology
Oman Journal of Ophthalmology Medicine-Ophthalmology
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
68
审稿时长
50 weeks
期刊介绍: To provide a platform for scientific expression of the Oman Ophthalmic Society and the international Ophthalmic community and to provide opportunities for free exchange of ideas and information. To serve as a valuable resource for ophthalmologists, eye-care providers including optometrists, orthoptists, other health care professionals and research workers in all aspects of the field of visual science.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信