Comparison of Medpor Coated Tear Drainage Tube versus Silicon Tear Drainage Tube in Conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy: Problems and Solutions
Purpose. This study aims at comparing two different types of drainage tubes in conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy, which are used for upper lacrimal system obstruction or damage, with respect to their respective postoperative problems and solutions. Methods. Nineteen eyes of 17 patients who underwent...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2014-01-01
|
| Series: | The Scientific World Journal |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/164834 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832559985382391808 |
|---|---|
| author | Selam Yekta Sendul Halil Huseyin Cagatay Burcu Dirim Mehmet Demir Ali Atakhan Yıldız Zeynep Acar Sonmez Cinar Dilek Guven |
| author_facet | Selam Yekta Sendul Halil Huseyin Cagatay Burcu Dirim Mehmet Demir Ali Atakhan Yıldız Zeynep Acar Sonmez Cinar Dilek Guven |
| author_sort | Selam Yekta Sendul |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose. This study aims at comparing two different types of drainage tubes in conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy, which are used for upper lacrimal system obstruction or damage, with respect to their respective postoperative problems and solutions. Methods. Nineteen eyes of 17 patients who underwent conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy (CDCR) or conjunctivorhinostomy (CR) surgery with a Medpor coated tear drainage tube or silicon tube placement between October, 2010, and February, 2014, were included in this retrospective comparative study. Results. In the initial surgery, Medpor coated tear drainage tubes were used in 11 eyes by CDCR, whereas silicon tear drainage tubes were implanted into 2 eyes by CR and 6 eyes by CDCR. In group 1, proximal and distal obstructions developed postoperatively in 4 eyes, while 1 eye showed tube malposition and 3 eyes developed luminal obstruction by debris 3 times. In group 2, tube extrusion developed in 4 eyes, whereas tube malposition developed in 6 eyes and luminal obstruction by debris developed in 6 eyes at different times, for a total of 20 times. Conclusions. In our study, the most significant complication we observed in the use of silicon tear drainage tubes was tube extrusion,whereas the leading complication related to the use of Medpor coated tear drainage tubes was tube obstruction. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-8ae41c701e274705ace47608c264d915 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2356-6140 1537-744X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2014-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | The Scientific World Journal |
| spelling | doaj-art-8ae41c701e274705ace47608c264d9152025-02-03T01:28:46ZengWileyThe Scientific World Journal2356-61401537-744X2014-01-01201410.1155/2014/164834164834Comparison of Medpor Coated Tear Drainage Tube versus Silicon Tear Drainage Tube in Conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy: Problems and SolutionsSelam Yekta Sendul0Halil Huseyin Cagatay1Burcu Dirim2Mehmet Demir3Ali Atakhan Yıldız4Zeynep Acar5Sonmez Cinar6Dilek Guven7Department of Ophthalmology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Halaskargazi Street, Etfal Home Street, Şişli, 34371 Istanbul, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Kafkas University, Pasacayiri Street, 36301 Kars, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Halaskargazi Street, Etfal Home Street, Şişli, 34371 Istanbul, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Halaskargazi Street, Etfal Home Street, Şişli, 34371 Istanbul, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Halaskargazi Street, Etfal Home Street, Şişli, 34371 Istanbul, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Halaskargazi Street, Etfal Home Street, Şişli, 34371 Istanbul, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Halaskargazi Street, Etfal Home Street, Şişli, 34371 Istanbul, TurkeyDepartment of Ophthalmology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Halaskargazi Street, Etfal Home Street, Şişli, 34371 Istanbul, TurkeyPurpose. This study aims at comparing two different types of drainage tubes in conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy, which are used for upper lacrimal system obstruction or damage, with respect to their respective postoperative problems and solutions. Methods. Nineteen eyes of 17 patients who underwent conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy (CDCR) or conjunctivorhinostomy (CR) surgery with a Medpor coated tear drainage tube or silicon tube placement between October, 2010, and February, 2014, were included in this retrospective comparative study. Results. In the initial surgery, Medpor coated tear drainage tubes were used in 11 eyes by CDCR, whereas silicon tear drainage tubes were implanted into 2 eyes by CR and 6 eyes by CDCR. In group 1, proximal and distal obstructions developed postoperatively in 4 eyes, while 1 eye showed tube malposition and 3 eyes developed luminal obstruction by debris 3 times. In group 2, tube extrusion developed in 4 eyes, whereas tube malposition developed in 6 eyes and luminal obstruction by debris developed in 6 eyes at different times, for a total of 20 times. Conclusions. In our study, the most significant complication we observed in the use of silicon tear drainage tubes was tube extrusion,whereas the leading complication related to the use of Medpor coated tear drainage tubes was tube obstruction.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/164834 |
| spellingShingle | Selam Yekta Sendul Halil Huseyin Cagatay Burcu Dirim Mehmet Demir Ali Atakhan Yıldız Zeynep Acar Sonmez Cinar Dilek Guven Comparison of Medpor Coated Tear Drainage Tube versus Silicon Tear Drainage Tube in Conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy: Problems and Solutions The Scientific World Journal |
| title | Comparison of Medpor Coated Tear Drainage Tube versus Silicon Tear Drainage Tube in Conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy: Problems and Solutions |
| title_full | Comparison of Medpor Coated Tear Drainage Tube versus Silicon Tear Drainage Tube in Conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy: Problems and Solutions |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Medpor Coated Tear Drainage Tube versus Silicon Tear Drainage Tube in Conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy: Problems and Solutions |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Medpor Coated Tear Drainage Tube versus Silicon Tear Drainage Tube in Conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy: Problems and Solutions |
| title_short | Comparison of Medpor Coated Tear Drainage Tube versus Silicon Tear Drainage Tube in Conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy: Problems and Solutions |
| title_sort | comparison of medpor coated tear drainage tube versus silicon tear drainage tube in conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy problems and solutions |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/164834 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT selamyektasendul comparisonofmedporcoatedteardrainagetubeversussiliconteardrainagetubeinconjunctivodacryocystorhinostomyproblemsandsolutions AT halilhuseyincagatay comparisonofmedporcoatedteardrainagetubeversussiliconteardrainagetubeinconjunctivodacryocystorhinostomyproblemsandsolutions AT burcudirim comparisonofmedporcoatedteardrainagetubeversussiliconteardrainagetubeinconjunctivodacryocystorhinostomyproblemsandsolutions AT mehmetdemir comparisonofmedporcoatedteardrainagetubeversussiliconteardrainagetubeinconjunctivodacryocystorhinostomyproblemsandsolutions AT aliatakhanyıldız comparisonofmedporcoatedteardrainagetubeversussiliconteardrainagetubeinconjunctivodacryocystorhinostomyproblemsandsolutions AT zeynepacar comparisonofmedporcoatedteardrainagetubeversussiliconteardrainagetubeinconjunctivodacryocystorhinostomyproblemsandsolutions AT sonmezcinar comparisonofmedporcoatedteardrainagetubeversussiliconteardrainagetubeinconjunctivodacryocystorhinostomyproblemsandsolutions AT dilekguven comparisonofmedporcoatedteardrainagetubeversussiliconteardrainagetubeinconjunctivodacryocystorhinostomyproblemsandsolutions |