Czech and Slovak Ophthalmology 426 Original article Comparison of therapeutic results of monocanalicular and bicanicular intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction Červenka Stanislav Matoušek Petr Komínek Martin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8322-5165 30 11 2016 5 3

Purpose: To compare the success rate of monocanalicular (MI) and bicanalicular intubation (BI) in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO). Methods: MI through the inferior canaliculus and BI were performed under general anaesthesia in children from 7 to 24 months old with CNLDO. Only children after unsuccessful conservative therapy and two and more probings were included in the study. The tubes were removed 3 months after intubation and the therapeutic success was evaluated 6 months after intubation. Results: There were performed 139 MI in 114 children and 119 BI in 88 children. The success rate 6 months after intubation is 135/139 (97.1%) in MI, 114/119 (95.8%) in BI and the difference in therapeutic results between MI and BI is not significant (p = 0.737). Conclusion: Silicone intubation is an effective procedure for treating CNLDO without difference in therapeutic success between MI and BI.

 congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (CNLDO) monocanalicular intubation (MI) bicanalicular intubation (BI) References Beigi, B., O’Keefe, M.: Results of Crawford tube intubation in children. Acta Ophthalmol, 71; 1993: 405–407. Crawford, J.S.: Intubation of obstruction in the lacrimal system. Canad J Ophthal, 12; 1977: 289–292. Červenka, S., Komínek, P.: Silikonová intubace – léčba komplikovaných stavů vrozené neprůchodnosti slzných cest. Čes a Slov Oftal, 53(2); 1997: 122–127. Dortzbach, R.K., France, T.D., Kushner, B.J., et al.: Silicone intubation for obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct in children. Am J Ophthalmol, 94; 1982: 585–590. El-Essawy, R.: Effect of timing of silicone tube removal on the result of duct intubation in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Opthal Plast Reconstr Surg, 29(1);2013:48-50. Engel, J.M., Hichie-Schmid, C., Khammar, A., et al.: Monocanalicular silastic intubation for the initial correction of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J AAPOS, 11; 2007: 183–186. Fayet, B., Bernard, J.A.: A monocanalicular stent with self-stabilizing meatic fixation in Sumery of excretory lacrimal ducts. Initial results. Ophthalmologie, 4; 1990: 351–357. Fayet, B., Bernard, J.A., Assouline, M., et al.: Bicanalicular versus monocanalicular silicone intubation for nasolacrimal duct impotency in childhood. Orbit, 12; 1993: 149–156. Goldstein, S.M., Goldstein, J.B., Katowitz, J.A.: Comparison of monocanalicular stenting and balloon dacryoplasty in secondary treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction after failed primary probing. Opthal Plast Reconstr Surg, 20; 2004: 352–357. Kaufman, L.M., Guay-Bhatia, L.A.: Monocanalicular intubation with Monoka tubes for the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Opthalmology, 105; 1998: 336–341. Komínek, P., Červenka, S., Novák, V.: Intubace odvodných slzných cest – přehled některých technik. Čes a Slov Oftal, 53(1); 1997: 32–39. Komínek, P., Červenka, S., Novák, V.: Intubation of the lacrimal pathways. Ophthalmologica, 214; 2000: 381–384. Komínek, P., Červenka, S., Pniak, T., et al.: Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Opthalmol, 249; 2011: 1729–1733. Lee, H., Ahn, J., Lee, J.M., et al.: Cli- nical effectiveness of monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Craniofac Surg, 23(4); 2012: 1010–1014. Lim, C.S., Martin, F., Beckenham, T., Cumming, R.G.: Nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children: outcome of intubation. J AAPOS, 8; 2004: 466–472. Meyer, D.R., Antonello, A., Linberg, J.V.: Assessment of tear drainage after canalicular obstruction using fluorescein dye disappearance. Ophthalmology, 97; 1990: 1670–1674. Migliori, M.E., Putterman, A.M.: Silicone intubation for the treatment of congenital lacrimal duct obstruction: successful results removing the tubes after six weeks. Ophthalmology, 95; 1988: 792–795. Noda ,S., Hayasaka, S., Setogawa, T.: Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in Japanese infants: its incidence and treatment with massage. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strab, 28; 1991: 20–22. Nucci, P., Capoferri, C., Alfarano, R., et al.: Conservative management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strab, 26; 1989: 39–43. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group.: 73; 2009: 1536–1538. Pelit, A., Caylakli, F., Yaycioglu, R.A., et al.: Silicone intubation with the Ritleng method unsing intranasal endoscopy to treat congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Int J Pediatr Otorinolafyngol, Quickert, M.H., Dryden, R.M.: Probes for intubation in lacrimal drainage. Tr Am Acad Ophth Otol, 74; 1970: 431–433. Ratliff, C.D., Meyer, D.R.: Silicone intubation without intranasal fixation for treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Am J Ophthalmol, 118; 1994: 781–785. Primary treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction with nasolacrimal duct intubation in children younger than 4 years of age. J AAPOS, 12; 2008: 451–455. Takahashi, Y., Kakizaki, H., Chang, W.O., et al.: Management of congenital duct obstruction. Acta Opthalmol, 88; 2010: 506–513. Welsh, M.G., Katowitz, J.A.: Timing of silastic tubing removal after intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg, 5(1); 1989: 43–48.