Comparison of Crawford and Nunchaku Tubes in Dacryoendoscopy-Guided Silicone Intubation for Primary Acquired Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Seong Jung Ha, Min Kyu Yang, Ho-Seok Sa
{"title":"Comparison of Crawford and Nunchaku Tubes in Dacryoendoscopy-Guided Silicone Intubation for Primary Acquired Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction.","authors":"Seong Jung Ha, Min Kyu Yang, Ho-Seok Sa","doi":"10.1097/IOP.0000000000003027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare surgical outcomes and complications between Crawford and Nunchaku-style tubes in dacryoendoscopy-guided silicone intubation for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed 24 consecutive patients with bilateral primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction who underwent dacryoendoscopy-guided silicone intubation with >6 months of follow-up. Crawford and Nunchaku-style tubes were used for OD and OS, respectively, and both were removed 6 months postoperatively. Surgical success was assessed at 9 months based on irrigation patency and epiphora relief. Complications, including tube extrusion and punctal slit, were monitored. We compared success rates and complications between groups and analyzed extrusion impact and punctal slit on surgical outcomes, and risk factors for punctal slit in the Nunchaku group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Surgical success rates were 83.3% and 88.9% in the Crawford and Nunchaku groups, respectively (p = 1.000). Tube extrusion was more common in the Crawford group (29.2% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.009), whereas punctal slit was more frequent in the Nunchaku group (41.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001). Neither tube extrusion nor punctal slit significantly affected surgical outcomes (p = 1.000 and p = 0.477, respectively). Diffuse obstruction observed on dacryoendoscopy was associated with a higher risk of punctal slit in the Nunchaku group, though not statistically significant (odds ratio = 6.000, p = 0.071).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Crawford and Nunchaku-style tubes showed similar success rates. Nunchaku-style tubes reduce the need for nasal manipulation and extrusion risk but increase punctal slit risk. Clinicians should consider these differences when choosing tube type and optimizing surgical techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":19588,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0000000000003027","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare surgical outcomes and complications between Crawford and Nunchaku-style tubes in dacryoendoscopy-guided silicone intubation for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 24 consecutive patients with bilateral primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction who underwent dacryoendoscopy-guided silicone intubation with >6 months of follow-up. Crawford and Nunchaku-style tubes were used for OD and OS, respectively, and both were removed 6 months postoperatively. Surgical success was assessed at 9 months based on irrigation patency and epiphora relief. Complications, including tube extrusion and punctal slit, were monitored. We compared success rates and complications between groups and analyzed extrusion impact and punctal slit on surgical outcomes, and risk factors for punctal slit in the Nunchaku group.

Results: Surgical success rates were 83.3% and 88.9% in the Crawford and Nunchaku groups, respectively (p = 1.000). Tube extrusion was more common in the Crawford group (29.2% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.009), whereas punctal slit was more frequent in the Nunchaku group (41.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001). Neither tube extrusion nor punctal slit significantly affected surgical outcomes (p = 1.000 and p = 0.477, respectively). Diffuse obstruction observed on dacryoendoscopy was associated with a higher risk of punctal slit in the Nunchaku group, though not statistically significant (odds ratio = 6.000, p = 0.071).

Conclusions: Crawford and Nunchaku-style tubes showed similar success rates. Nunchaku-style tubes reduce the need for nasal manipulation and extrusion risk but increase punctal slit risk. Clinicians should consider these differences when choosing tube type and optimizing surgical techniques.

泪内窥镜引导下硅胶插管治疗原发性获得性鼻泪管阻塞的比较。
目的:比较泪内窥镜引导下应用克劳福德管与双节节管硅胶插管治疗原发性获得性鼻泪管梗阻的手术效果和并发症。方法:对连续24例双侧原发性获得性鼻泪管梗阻患者进行泪内镜引导下硅胶插管治疗,随访6个月。分别使用Crawford和nunchaku型管进行OD和OS,并在术后6个月切除。9个月时根据冲洗通畅和上睑下垂情况评估手术成功。监测并发症,包括管挤压和点状切开。我们比较了两组间的成功率和并发症,并分析了挤压冲击和点状切口对双节棍组手术结果的影响,以及点状切口的危险因素。结果:Crawford组和Nunchaku组手术成功率分别为83.3%和88.9% (p = 1.000)。克劳福德组更常见的是管挤压(29.2%比0.0%,p = 0.009),而双节棍组更常见的是点状裂(41.7%比0.0%,p < 0.001)。导管挤压和点状切开对手术结果均无显著影响(p = 1.000和p = 0.477)。双节棍组泪道内窥镜检查发现弥漫性梗阻与点状裂隙发生风险增高相关,但差异无统计学意义(优势比= 6.000,p = 0.071)。结论:克劳福德管和双节棍管的成功率相似。双节棍式插管减少了鼻部操作和挤压风险,但增加了点状切口风险。临床医生在选择管型和优化手术技术时应考虑这些差异。
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
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
322
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery features original articles and reviews on topics such as ptosis, eyelid reconstruction, orbital diagnosis and surgery, lacrimal problems, and eyelid malposition. Update reports on diagnostic techniques, surgical equipment and instrumentation, and medical therapies are included, as well as detailed analyses of recent research findings and their clinical applications.
×
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