The Effectiveness of the Canalicular Laceration Repair: Comparison betweenthe Pigtail Probing and the Bicanalicular Stent

Abstract

          Purpose: To comparethe success rate of repairing canalicular laceration between the pigtail probing and the bicanalicular stent intubation procedures. Patients and Methods: The retrospective study recruited the patients with the canalicular laceration repair from Maharat Nakhon Ratchasima Hospital between March 2013 and February 2015. Patients were divided into two groups for different procedures, pigtail probing and bicanalicular stent intubation, and all of patients were operated by one surgeon. Result: A total of 45 cases, 34 cases (75.6%), of canalicular laceration repair were reviewed. Mean age was 46.3 years (SD18.2). There were 18 cases (40%) having right eye injury and 27 cases (60%) with left eye injury. The single laceration on the lower eye lid was found in 36 cases (80%), the upper eye lid in 2 cases (4.4%) and double lacerations (involvingthe upper and lower lids) in 7 cases (15.6%). The mean length of laceration from the punctumon the upper lid was 5.8 mm (SD1.8) and on the lower lid was 5.7 mm (SD2.2). The three common causes of injury were the traffic accident in 25 cases (55.6%), the falling in 6 cases (13.3%), and patient face attack by the falling hard object in 4 cases (8.9%). Only 23 cases were included in study because of their complete record and follow-up data. And they were divided as 14 inannular intubation (pigtail probing) group and 9 in bicanalicular stent intubation group. The anatomical success (by irrigated sac) was achieved in 10 cases in the first group (71.4 %) but not in four cases (soft stop) (28.6 %). However, 2 cases from unsuccessful group had no lacrimation. Nine cases (100%) in the bicanalicular stent intubation groupachievedthe anatomical success. The late complicationswere found in 2 cases, one with cicatricialectropion and the other with secondary glaucoma after traumatic hyphema. Conclusion: The bicanalicular stent intubation for repairing the canalicular laceration seemed to besuperior to the annular laceration procedure. The limitation of this study was too small sample size. Further studies should be considered for statistical analysis.