About OJO | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Author Instructions | Reviewer Guidelines | Online submissionLogin 
Oman Journal of Ophthalmology Oman Journal of Ophthalmology
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
https://www.omanophthalmicsociety.org/ Users Online: 999  Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 198-203

Outcomes of canalicular trephination versus canaliculodacryocystorhinostomy in common canalicular blocks

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Tejaswini Vukkadala
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ojo.ojo_181_21

Rights and Permissions

AIM: This study aimed to compare the outcomes and efficacy of canalicular trephination with monocanalicular stenting and canaliculodacryocystorhinostomy (canaliculoDCR) with silicone intubation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective comparative study was done in 30 patients (30 eyes) with common canalicular blocks who were randomized into two groups. Fifteen patients underwent canalicular trephination with monocanalicular stenting and 15 patients underwent canaliculoDCR with silicone intubation. Common canalicular obstruction was diagnosed by preoperative syringing and the location of block was confirmed on probing. Stents were kept in both the groups for 3 months and followed up till 6 months postoperatively. Success was defined based on both anatomical and functional outcomes. Anatomical success was defined by the free passage of fluid on syringing with the fluid felt in the throat. Functional success was defined in terms of relief from epiphora based on the subjective opinion and its categorization by Kraft and Crawford's grading and the fluorescein dye disappearance test (FDDT). RESULTS: Eighty percent of eyes in canalicular trephination group and 73.3% of eyes in canaliculoDCR group were anatomically patent on syringing at the final follow-up. Sixty-six percent of eyes in trephination group and 53.3% in canaliculoDCR group were reported to have absent epiphora (complete recovery). Ten eyes in both groups had Grade 0 and 1 FDDT indicating a functional success of 66.6% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Canalicular trephination can produce results comparable to canaliculoDCR with silicone intubation in cases of common canalicular blocks. The average duration of surgery is significantly less in canalicular trephination which gives this procedure an added advantage.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded25    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal