Journal of Ophthalmology

Journal of Ophthalmology / 2019 / Article

Clinical Study | Open Access

Volume 2019 |Article ID 8435185 | 5 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8435185

The Study of a New Modified Bicanalicular Intubation for the Repairment of Traumatic Canalicular Laceration

Academic Editor: Michele Figus
Received16 Aug 2018
Revised03 Dec 2018
Accepted20 Dec 2018
Published27 Jan 2019

Abstract

Introduction. To investigate the efficacy and safety of a modified bicanalicular intubation (MBCI) used in canalicular laceration. Materials and Methods. This study is a retrospective consecutive chart review. A total of 43 eyes from 43 patients (36 males and 7 females) who underwent canalicular intubation were enrolled. Success rate was determined at 6 months after the surgery. Anatomical success was determined by diagnostic probing and irrigation; functional success was determined by asking patients about tearing. Results. Irrigation of the lacrimal passages in all 43 eyes showed that they were free from obstruction. The anatomical success was 100%, and 37 eyes (86%) achieved functional success. 6 eyes (14%) could not achieve functional success because there were some residual symptoms under irritating conditions, such as wind or winter weather, among which 2 eyes had bicanalicular lacerations and 4 eyes had lower canalicular laceration before surgery. There were no other complications observed in this study. Conclusions. The MBCI was simple and safe for using in canalicular laceration.

1. Introduction

Canalicular laceration may occur at any age [1, 2], especially in children and young adults and commonly affects the inferior canaliculus [3]. In addition, both direct and indirect injuries at the medial canthal region may result in canalicular laceration [1, 4]. It is difficult to deal with when both superior and inferior canaliculi were lacerated [57]. Canalicular laceration frequently accompanies other ocular injuries, including eyelid and globe lacerations [8]. Unrepaired canalicular lacerations may cause inflammation, scar, canalicular stenosis, and obstruction, leading to subsequent epiphora [3]. Several methods are available for reconstructing the lacerated canaliculus, including repair of the lacerated eyelid without a lacrimal stent, intubation of the lacerated duct with monocanalicular or bicanalicular stents with or without mucosal anastomosis, or early canaliculodacryocystorhinostomy [1, 913].

Most surgeons believe that reconstruction of a lacerated canaliculus with a stent is necessary [9]. Both bicanalicular and monocanalicular intubation have been reported for reconstructing traumatic canalicular laceration [10, 11, 13, 14], but with no consensus with respect to which is the best technique.

Herein, according to the accumulation of our clinical work, we describe a modified bicanalicular intubation (MBCI) technique for the treatment of canalicular laceration.

2. Materials and Methods

MBCI is a new bicanalicular silicone tube designed. This tube comprises 2 parts. The first part is a polyurethane elastomer tube with 2 blind tips (Figure 1). There is a black mark spot in the middle of the polyurethane elastomer tube for positioning when implanted. There are also some holes located on the side of the tube for drainage and metal probe insert. The second part is a metal probe that lies within the stent lumen and works as a guiding probe, which is similar to an arterial catheter, facilitates the insertion of the stent (Figure 1). Once the lacrimal canaliculus is intubated, the metal probe is withdrawn, and the polyurethane elastome stent remains in the canaliculus (Figure 1).

The main material of MBCI is polyurethane elastomer, which both with the toughness and rigidity has excellent biocompatibility [15]. The hardness is Shore 74D (the hardness of implanted silicone commonly used in the human body is Shore 30-50D).

2.1. Patients

This study is a retrospective consecutive chart review. A total of 43 eyes from 43 patients (36 males and 7 females) underwent canalicular intubation from October 2014 to June 2016 in the Second People’s Hospital of Jinan. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Second People’s Hospital of Jinan and conformed to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The age ranged from 22 to 53 years (mean age 32.54 years). The duration from the time of canalicular injury to the surgery ranged from 1 h to 3 days. In patients with suspected canalicular laceration, presence of a laceration was confirmed by canalicular probing. Demographic and other data on the type of injury and concomitant eye and noneye injuries were collected for each patient. Among the 43 eyes, 32 (74.4%) had lower canalicular lacerations, 4 (9.3%) had upper canalicular lacerations, and 7 (16.3%) had bicanalicular lacerations. A consent form was obtained from each patient before the surgery.

2.2. Surgical Procedures

For all patients, the surgical procedures and diagnostic probing at follow-up visits were performed by the same surgeon. Canalicular laceration was repaired under a surgical microscope. The procedure was performed under local infiltration anesthesia with 2% lidocaine hydrochloride. First, the proximal portion of the canaliculus was explored. Subsequently, the inferior punctum was dilated using a punctum dilator and MBCI was then inserted in the punctum (Figure 2). Following intubation of the proximal and distal portions of the lacerated canaliculus, the tube was fixed in the punctum and the metal probe was withdrawn from the stent. Subsequently, the other end of the MBCI was inserted in superior puncta with leaving a loop of tubing extending between the inferior and superior puncta. After that, the 2 ends of the lacerated canaliculus were approximated using a 7-0 Vicryl suture. Eventually, the eyelid margin and other parts of the eyelids were repaired using 6-0 silk sutures (Figure 3). At last, the position of the MBCI was adjusted until the black mark spot was located in the inner canthus, without any suture fixation (Figure 4). After the surgery, chloramphenicol and betamethasone eye drops (4 times a day for 5 days) and tetracycline eye ointment (twice a day) were prescribed to all patients (Figures 57).

2.3. Removal of the Polyurethane Elastomer Tube

All subjects were asked to visit the hospital on the first and third days following the surgery, at the end of the first week after the surgery, and at the end of the first, third, and sixth month after the surgery.

The tube was removed at 3 months after the surgery, when the patients had experienced relief from tearing and irrigation (Figure 4). After a drop of topical ophthalmic anesthetic (0.4% Oxybuprocaine Hydrochloride Eye Drops, Santen Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Shiga Plant, Japan) was instilled into the conjunctival sac, the MBCI was pulled out with small, blunt forceps. Irrigation (with 0.3% Tobramycin Eye Drops (s.a. ALCON-COUVREUR n.v.)) was administered to the patients immediately after tube removal to clear the discharge in the lacrimal passage.

Success rate was determined at 6 months after the surgery. Anatomical success was determined by diagnostic probing and irrigation; functional success was determined by asking patients about tearing.

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 17 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

3. Results

MBCI was performed successfully in all eyes without any intraoperative complications during the surgery. All the tubes were left in place for 3 months after the surgery. All the tubes were removed successfully in the outpatient department. The follow-up after tube removal ranged from 6 to 25 months (mean 11.7 ± 5.1 months).

Irrigation of the lacrimal passages in all 43 eyes showed that they were free from obstruction. The anatomical success was 100%, and 37 eyes (86%) achieved functional success. Six eyes (14%) could not achieve functional success because there were some residual symptoms under irritating conditions, such as wind or winter weather, among which, 2 eyes had bicanalicular lacerations and 4 eyes had lower canalicular laceration before surgery. There were no other complications observed in this study.

No intraoperative complication occurred. Spontaneous tube loss was not observed. Intracanalicular migration of the stent, chronic irritation, and formation of granulation tissue were not observed in any patient.

4. Discussion

Silicone is the most widely used tubing material to prevent canalicular obstruction. For the canalicular stenting, one essentially must choose from either a monocanalicular stenting, an annular stent assisted by pigtail probe, or BCI stents [9, 1621]. Recently, it has been reported that monocanalicular stent extrusions may occur within 1 month and with a 11.1% extrusion rate, especially in upper canalicular lacerations, resulting in potential damage to the ocular surface [8]. Therefore, this technique is not suitable for use in patients with combined upper and lower canalicular lacerations [22]. Kersten and Kulwin [23] reported “one-stitch” canalicular repair, a simplified approach for repair canalicular lacerations. But there is still probability of inflammation granuloma caused by remained suture near the canaliculus, which theoretically could lead to a bigger scar in the anastomosis site, and could also possibly lead to lacrimal canalicular obstruction.

BCI, which was developed by Crawford [24] and Guibor [25], involves the passage of the tube through the inferior and superior puncta, leaving a loop of tubing extending between the inferior and superior puncta. The approach has been widely adopted by many ophthalmologists since the 1970s because of its simplicity, safety, efficacy, and minimal invasiveness [26]. However, the traditional BCI stent has some disadvantages, including the potential damage to the normal nasolacrimal duct, the Hasner valve, and the ocular surface. To avoid the drawbacks mentioned above, a number of developments have been reported, such as the use of pigtail [9, 21, 27], which some surgeons find challenging to master, especially to the bicanalicular lacerations.

To overcome the disadvantages of conventional BCI, improvements based on the use of silicone tubes have become increasingly important [28]. In this study, we introduced a method of MBCI intubation and achieved a good result without more invasive injury using a polyurethane elastomer tube. The MBCI has many advantages. First, when evaluated for invasiveness, the nasal stenting is traditionally considered a more invasive technique because it is usually difficult to clamp the inserted antegrade suture crossing the inferior turbinate out of the inferior meatus, and it often needs to be assisted by an intranasal endoscope [11, 29]. Compared with the traditional BCI, the polyurethane using in this MBCI has some advantages. The main material of MBCI is polyurethane elastomer, which has excellent biocompatibility, the toughness, and rigidity [15]. The hardness of polyurethane elastomer is Shore 74D. This hardness ensures that it is not easy to form sharp corner or break when bending. The hardness also can make the tube fixed in the lacrimal duct without any additional skin suture and antegrade suture. No cases of extrusion have been found in this study. Further research is needed for this. Secondly, it is especially suitable for upper and lower canalicular lacerations. At last, because of the hardness of the polyurethane elastomer, the MBCI can alleviate the tissue tension, which can make the tear edge be anastomosed together and healed accurately.

However, there are also some disadvantages. First, although our study did not find it, the risk of stent prolapse still exists, which need more research. Second, as other intubations, the potential risks of the normal lacrimal punctum splitting and canalicular tearing also exist.

The good outcomes of this study confirm that MBCI was simple and safe in our hands. However, the clinical outcomes should be further investigated by subsequent investigations with a larger sample size.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Disclosure

This study was performed as part of the employment of the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. A. P. Murchison and J. R. Bilyk, “Canalicular laceration repair,” Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 410–414, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. X. Yang, T. Jin, and X. Pang, “Repair of a canalicular laceration in a neonate,” Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, vol. 42, pp. 306-307, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  3. R. H. Kennedy, J. May, J. Dailey, and J. C. Flanagan, “Canalicular laceration,” Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 46–53, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. S. Ziai, D. R. Jordan, S. M. Gilberg et al., “Pathogenesis of canalicular lacerations,” Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 394–398, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. A. Priel, K. Leelapatranurak, S.-R. Oh, B. S. Korn, and D. O. Kikkawa, “Medial canthal degloving injuries,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 300e–305e, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. B. Drnovsek-Olup and M. Beltram, “Trauma of the lacrimal drainage system: retrospective study of 32 patients,” Croatian Medical Journal, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 292–294, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  7. H. Lee, J. Ahn, T. E. Lee et al., “Clinical characteristics and treatment of blow-out fracture accompanied by canalicular laceration,” Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1399–1403, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. M. N. Naik, A. Kelapure, S. Rath, and S. G. Honavar, “Management of canalicular lacerations: epidemiological aspects and experience with Mini-Monoka monocanalicular stent,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 145, no. 2, pp. 375–380, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. H. Lee, M. Chi, M. Park, and S. Baek, “Effectiveness of canalicular laceration repair using monocanalicular intubation with Monoka tubes,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 87, no. 7, pp. 793–796, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. S. Eo, J. Park, S. Cho, and K. K. Azari, “Microsurgical reconstruction for canalicular laceration using Monostent and Mini-Monoka,” Annals of Plastic Surgery, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 421–427, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. S.-Y. Wu, L. Ma, R. J. Chen, Y.-J. Tsai, and Y.-C. Chu, “Analysis of bicanalicular nasal intubation in the repair of canalicular lacerations,” Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 24–31, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. J. J. Hurwitz, D. Avram, and V. Kratky, “Avulsion of the canalicular system,” Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina, vol. 20, pp. 726–8, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  13. D. R. Jordan, S. Gilberg, and L. A. Mawn, “The round-tipped, eyed pigtail probe for canalicular intubation: a review of 228 patients,” Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 176–180, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. I. Leibovitch, H. Kakizaki, V. Prabhakaran, and D. Selva, “Canalicular lacerations: repair with the mini-monokamonocanalicular intubation stent,” Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers, and Imaging, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 472–477, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. J. Wang, Y. Zuo, M. Zhao et al., “Physicochemical and biological properties of a novel injectable polyurethane system for root canal filling,” International Journal of Nanomedicine, vol. 10, pp. 697–709, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. C. Windhövel, L. Harder, J.-P. Bach et al., “Comparison of six different silicones in vitro for application as glaucoma drainage device,” Materials, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 341, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. H. R. Chowdhury, G. E. Rose, and D. G. Ezra, “Long-term outcomes of monocanalicular repair of canalicular lacerations,” Ophthalmology, vol. 121, no. 8, pp. 1665-1666, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. D. R. Jordan and L. Mawn, “Repair of canalicular lacerations,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 146, no. 5, pp. 792-793, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. P. Komínek, S. Cervenka, T. Pniak et al., “Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction,” Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 249, no. 11, pp. 1729–1733, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  20. N. L. Tint, P. Alexander, A. E. Cook, and B. Leatherbarrow, “Eyelid avulsion repair with bi-canalicular silicone stenting without medial canthal tendon reconstruction,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 95, no. 10, pp. 1389–1392, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. D. R. Jordan, J. A. Nerad, and D. T. Tse, “The pigtail probe, revisited,” Ophthalmology, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 512–519, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. D. M. Reifler, “Management of canalicular laceration,” Survey of Ophthalmology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 113–132, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. R. C. Kersten and D. R. Kulwin, ““One-stitch” canalicular repair,” Ophthalmology, vol. 103, no. 5, pp. 785–789, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. J. S. Crawford, “Intubation of obstructions in the lacrimal system,” Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 289–92, 1977. View at: Google Scholar
  25. P. Guibor, “Canaliculus intubation set,” Transactions-American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. OP419–OP420, 1975. View at: Google Scholar
  26. P. Komínek, S. Červenka, T. Pniak, K. Zeleník, H. Tomášková, and P Matoušek, “Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction,” Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, vol. 249, no. 11, pp. 1729–1733, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. J. L. Pecora, “Pediatric nasolacrimal pigtail probes,” Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 249, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
  28. X. Liang, Y. Lin, Z. Wang et al., “A modified bicanalicular intubation procedure to repair canalicular lacerations using silicone tubes,” Eye, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 1542–1547, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. D. Chen, N. Li, P. Wan et al., “A novel procedure for treating canalicular obstruction by re-canaliculisation and bicanalicular intubation,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 366–369, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2019 Miaomiao Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

605 Views | 222 Downloads | 0 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.