AOR
Archives of Ophthalmological Research

The Archives of Ophthalmological Research aims to publish issues related to publish articles of the highest scientific and clinical value at an international level, and accepts articles on these topics. The target audience of the journal included specialists and physicians working in ophthalmology, and other health professionals interested in these fields.

eISSN: 3023-6479
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.
EndNote Style

Online Manuscript System

Index
Original Article
Comparative effectiveness of monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone intubation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical success and outcomes of monocanalicular (MCI) versus bicanalicular silicone intubation (BCI) in pediatric patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO).
Methods: A retrospective, comparative study was conducted on 41 eyes of 41 children diagnosed with CNLDO, treated with either monocanalicular silicone intubation (MCI, n=16) or bicanalicular silicone intubation (BCI, n=25). All procedures were performed by 2 oculoplastic surgeons. Tube removal was planned for the 3rd postoperative month. Treatment success was defined as a fluorescein disappearance test of 0 and a Munk score of 0-1, 3 months after tube removal.
Results: Forty-one eyes of 41 patients were analysed in 2 groups as MCI (n=16) and BCI (n=25). The mean age was 43.1±17.9 months (between 24 months and 72 months). Twenty-five (61%) of the patients were females and 16 (39%) were males. Twenty-one (51.2%) of the patients were right eyes and 20 (47.8%) were left eyes. Treatment success was achieved in 93.7% of the MCI group and 88% of the BCI group. There was no statistically significant difference between the MCI and BCI groups in terms of age, gender distribution, and laterality (p>0.05)
Conclusion: Monocanalicular and bicanalicular intubation showed similar success rates in treating CNLDO. However, monocanalicular intubation provided greater tube stability and technical simplicity, making it a practical option in pediatric cases.

Keywords : Bicanalicular, intubation, monocanalicular

Download Article


1. Young JDH, MacEwen CJ. Fortnightly review: managing congenital lacrimal obstruction in general practice. BMJ. 1997;315(7103):293-296. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7103.293
2. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Resolution of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction with nonsurgical management. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(6):730-734. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2012. 454
3. Sathiamoorthi S, Frank RD, Mohney BG. Spontaneous resolution and timing of intervention in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136(11):1281-1286. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.3841
4. Kashkouli MB, Beigi B, Parvaresh MM, Kassaee A, Tabatabaee Z. Late and very late initial probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: what is the cause of failure? Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(9): 1151-1153. doi:10.1136/bjo.87.9.1151
5. Kapadia MK, Freitag SK, Woog JJ. Evaluation and management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2006;39(5):959-vii. doi:10.1016/j.otc.2006.08.004
6. Stager D, Baker JD, Frey T, Weakley Jr DR, Birch EE. Office probing of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmic Surg. 1992;23(7): 482-484. doi:10.3928/1542-8877-19920701-11
7. Katowitz JA, Welsh MG. Timing of initial probing and irrigation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Ophthalmology. 1987;94(6): 698-705. doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(87)33392-5
8. Robb RM. Success rates of nasolacrimal duct probing at time intervals after 1 year of age. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(7):1307-1310. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(98)97038-5
9. Paul TO, Shepherd R. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: natural history and the timing of optimal intervention. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1994;31(6):362-367. doi:10.3928/0191-3913-19941101-04
10. Komínek P, Cervenka S, Pniak T, Zeleník K, Tomášková H, Matoušek P. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249(11):1729-1733. doi:10.1007/s00417-011-1700-2
11. Fayet B, Bernard JA. A monocanalicular stent with self-stabilising meatic fixation in surgery of excretory lacrimal ducts. Initial results. Ophtalmologie. 1990;4(4):351-357.
12. Katowitz WR, Prat DL, Munroe CE, et al. Primary monocanalicular stent intubation for children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: surgical outcome and risk factors.Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;38(5):490-495. doi:10.1097/IOP.0000000000002182
13. Nelson LB, Calhoun JH, Menduke H. Medical management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Pediatrics. 1985;76(2):172-175. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(85)33878-2
14. Ariturk N, Oge I, Oge F, Erkan D, Havuz E. Silicone intubation for obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct in adults. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999;77(4):481-482. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0420.1999.770429.x
15. Dortzbach RK, France TD, Kushner BJ, Gonnering RS. Silicone intubation for obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct in children. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982;94(5):585-590. doi:10.1016/0002-9394(82)90001-0
16. Andalib D, Gharabaghi D, Nabai R, Abbaszadeh M. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular silicone intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS. 2010;14(5):421-424. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos. 2010.08.003
17. Kashkouli MB, Kempster RC, Galloway GD, Beigi B. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular silicone intubation for nasolacrimal duct stenosis in adults. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;21(2):142-147. doi:10. 1097/01.iop.0000155524.04390.7b
18. Kaufman LM, Guay-Bhatia LA. Monocanalicular intubation with Monoka tubes for the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(2):336-341. doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(98)93445-5
19. Lee H, Ahn J, Lee JM, Park M, Baek S. Clinical effectiveness of monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(4):1010-1014. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e31824dfc8a
20. Eshraghi B, Jamshidian-Tehrani M, Mirmohammadsadeghi A. Comparison of the success rate between monocanalicular and bicanalicular intubations in incomplete complex congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Orbit. 2017;36(4):215-217. doi:10.1080/01676830.2017.1337161
21. Engel JM, Hichie-Schmidt C, Khammar A, Ostfeld BM, Vyas A, Ticho BH. Monocanalicular silastic intubation for the initial correction of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS. 2007;11(2):183-186. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2006.09.009
22. Rajabi MT, Zavarzadeh N, Mahmoudi A, et al. Bicanalicular versus monocanalicular intubation after failed probing in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9(10):1466-1470. doi:10.18240/ijo.2016.10.16
23. El-Essawy R. Effect of timing of silicone tube removal on the result of duct intubation in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;29(1):48-50. doi:10. 1097/IOP.0b013e318275b634
24. Peterson NJ, Weaver RG, Yeatts RP. Effect of short-duration silicone intubation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;24(3):167-171. doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e318171 13f5
25. Lim CS, Martin F, Beckenham T, Cumming RG. Nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children: outcome of intubation.J AAPOS. 2004;8(5): 466-472. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2004.06.013
26. Fayet B, Hurbi T, Renard G, Ruban JM, Racy E, Bernard JA. Suggested precautions when using a monocanalicular stent. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;17(1):76-78. doi:10.1097/00002341-200101000-000 15
27. Tai ELM, Kueh YC, Abdullah B. The use of stents in children with nasolacrimal duct obstruction requiring surgical intervention: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3):1067. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17031067
Article available in :
Volume 2, Issue 3, 2025
Page : 48-52
https://doi.org/10.51271/AOR-0035
Article Information
Received : 03 Haz 2025
Accepted : 23 Tem 2025
Published : 28 Tem 2025
Corresponding Author :

Gülistan Oyur: Department of Ophthalmology, Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, Turkiye

[email protected]
Citation : Oyur G, Savur F, Kumantaş E. Comparative effectiveness of monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone intubation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Arch Ophthalmol Res. 2025;2(3):48-52.

Read: 247
Download : 618
Cited: 0
_Footer