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: 5131  Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size


 
 Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
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

Date of Submission12-Jun-2021
Date of Decision28-Jul-2021
Date of Acceptance17-Oct-2021
Date of Web Publication29-Jun-2022

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

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ojo.ojo_181_21

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


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.

Keywords: Canalicular blocks, lacrimal, trephination


How to cite this article:
Vukkadala T, Bajaj MS, Pushker N. Outcomes of canalicular trephination versus canaliculodacryocystorhinostomy in common canalicular blocks. Oman J Ophthalmol 2022;15:198-203

How to cite this URL:
Vukkadala T, Bajaj MS, Pushker N. Outcomes of canalicular trephination versus canaliculodacryocystorhinostomy in common canalicular blocks. Oman J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 4];15:198-203. Available from: https://www.ojoonline.org/text.asp?2022/15/2/198/348975




   Introduction Top


Canalicular obstructions can occur at any point along the course of the canaliculi and due to a wide variety of causes.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8] The spectrum of symptoms can be mild to severe. The minuscule diameter and the fragile nature of the canaliculi pose a major problem in the management of these blocks.[9],[10],[11],[12],[13] Repeated syringing and probing can itself aggravate the condition and further damage the canaliculi. Although canaliculodacryocystorhinostomy (canaliculoDCR) involving dissection and removal of obstruction in the common canaliculus with silicone intubation has been widely accepted as the procedure of choice, successful treatment of canalicular obstructions continues to represent a therapeutic challenge.[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24]

Sisler and Allarakhia in 1990 introduced the ophthalmic minitrephine to facilitate microtrephination of canalicular obstructions.[25],[26] They reported an anatomical success rate of 83.3% at 6-month follow-up. Ever since multiple studies have been done using this trephine for the management of canalicular stenosis with variable success [Table 1].
Table 1: Review of literature of previous studies on canalicular trephination

Click here to view


Our study intends to compare these two techniques and to come up with a better option between the two which can be used as the primary procedure of choice in cases of common canalicular blocks.


   Materials and Methods Top


A total of 30 patients with common canalicular blocks were included and divided into two groups. Appropriate informed patient was taken and the study was approved by the Institute Ethics Committee. It was a prospective interventional comparative study. Patients were allocated in the groups by a series of random numbers. Group 1 included 15 patients who underwent canalicular trephination and monocanalicular silicone stent placement and Group 2 included 15 patients who underwent canaliculoDCR with bicanalicular silicone stent intubation. Detailed ophthalmic history was taken and eyelid and lacrimal system examinations were done for all the patients. Traumatic cases and those with nasolacrimal duct obstructions were excluded from the study. The diagnosis was confirmed by a preoperative syringing showing regurgitation of the fluid from the opposite punctum and inability to perceive the fluid in the throat and a soft stop appreciated on probing with a Bowman's probe. The tear meniscus height was measured by instilling fluorescein dye in the conjunctival cul de sac and measuring the height of tear film in the lower lid margin at the pupillary center using the reticule on the slit lamp biomicroscope. A fluorescein dye disappearance test (FDDT) and grading of epiphora based on the Kraft and Crawford scale [Table 2] were done.[32],[33]
Table 2: Kraft and Crawford grading of epiphora

Click here to view


In canalicular trephination, local anesthesia was achieved by infiltration of a mixture of 50:50 of 2% lidocaine and 0.75% bupivacaine in the medial canthal area. Intraoperative syringing and probing was done and the location of the block in millimeters was noted. Then, the canalicular trephine [Figure 1] was introduced through the dilated punctum till the soft stop was felt. The stylet of the trephine was withdrawn and the trephine rotated in a clockwise and anticlockwise manner to allow its smooth progression till it removes the core of the obstructed canaliculus. The endpoint was when a hard stop was felt indicating removal of the obstruction. At this point, irrigation of fluid was done by a syringe attached to the hub of the trephine, and the patency of the passage was confirmed. The monocanalicular stent was then trimmed at its end into a bevel and gently passed through the system till its oval collarette head snugly fits into the punctum [Figure 2].
Figure 1: Canalicular minitrephine

Click here to view
Figure 2: (a) Punctal dilatation. (b) Canalicular trephination. (c) Onocanalicular stent insertion. (d) Advancement of the stent and insertion of collarette into the punctum. (e) Postoperative stent in place

Click here to view


The other group of patients who underwent canaliculoDCR had preoperative nasal packing and the procedure was done under local anesthesia using 2% lignocaine infiltration in medial canthal and ethmoidal area. A standard curvilinear medial canthal incision was given and soft tissue dissection was done. The periosteum was elevated and a bony ostium of the desired size was created. Anterior and posterior flaps of the lacrimal sac and nasal mucosa were created. The site of obstruction in canaliculus was identified by the insertion of a Bowman's probe and excised and a single silicone intubation tube was passed through both the canaliculi and left in place for 3 months. The anterior flaps of the sac and nasal mucosa were sutured with vicryl. The posterior flaps were excised. Soft tissue and skin were sutured and the ends of the silicone tubes were tied in a square knot in the nasal cavity.

After 3 months of follow-up, stents in both the groups were removed and syringing and FDDT was done for patency and the patients were followed up for 6 months.

Statistical analysis

All the data were documented in an Excel sheet and statistically analyzed using SPSS software at the end of the study. Qualitative data were expressed as percentages.

Groups having nonparametric data were subjected to Mann–Whitney test and to assess the changes in this group over a period of time, Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.

Groups having parametric data were subjected to two-sample t-test and to see the changes in these groups over a period of time, paired t-test was used. P < 0.05 was deemed statistically significant.


   Results Top


The mean age of the patients in canalicular trephination group was 41.06 ± 17.18 years and in canaliculoDCR with silicone intubation group was 48.8 ± 13.23 years. There were four (27%) males and 11 (73%) females in Group 1 and 6 (40%) males in and 9 (60%) females in Group 2. The mean duration of symptoms in canalicular trephination group was 10.13 ± 3.11 months and in canaliculoDCR was 10 ± 2.53 months. The mean location of the block from lower punctum was at 10 ± 0.84 mm in Group 1 and 9.86 ± 0.74 mm in Group 2.

The preoperative mean tear film height in the canalicular trephination and canaliculoDCR group was 0.96 ± 0.13 mm and 1.06 ± 0.17 mm, and after surgery, at final follow-up was 0.48 ± 0.25 mm (50% change; P = 0.002) and 0.59 ± 0.35 mm (44% change; P value = 0.002), respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.44).

The preoperative mean Schirmer's value in the canalicular trephination and canaliculoDCR group was 31.87 ± 2.5 mm and 31.53 ± 2.7 mm, and after surgery, at final follow-up was 18.6 ± 0.82 mm (43.5% change; P < 0.001) and 21.13 ± 1.73 mm (32.9% change; P < 0.001), respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.19).

In the canalicular trephination group, one patient had a premature stent extrusion at 1 month post surgery and at 3-month follow-up had restenosis. One patient in the same group did not have anatomical patency intraoperatively and remained the same at 3 months postoperative. Hence, a total of 13 patients were patent on syringing and probing at 3-month follow-up in canalicular trephination group. At postoperative follow-up of 4 months, restenosis had been noted in one patient and 12 patients were found to be patent and continued to be same at 6-month follow-up period. This anatomical success in the canalicular trephination group is statistically significant with P = 0.0005 (<0.05).

In the canaliculoDCR group, one patient had a premature stent extrusion at 2 months post surgery and at 3-month follow-up had restenosis. Hence, a total of 14 patients were patent on syringing and probing at 3 months post surgery. At postoperative follow-up of 4 months, restenosis was noted in three patients and 11 patients were found to be patent and continued to be the same at 6-month follow-up period. This anatomical success in the canaliculoDCR group is statistically significant with a P = 0.0009 (<0.05).

However, when we compared the anatomical patency outcomes at 3-month, 4-month, and 6-month follow-up post surgery between the two groups, P value at all these intervals was >0.9 (>0.05), implying that the two groups were comparable and that there was no statistically significant difference at each follow-up.

We evaluated the functional patency of the two procedures by an FDDT and a subjective relief from epiphora based on Kraft and Crawford grading system. Grading of FDDT was done 5 min after instillation of the dye, as given in [Table 3].
Table 3: Grading of fluorescein dye disappearance test

Click here to view


In the canalicular trephination group, preoperatively, six patients were in FDDT Grade 2 and nine were in Grade 3. At 6-month follow-up, we have noted three patients in Grade 0, seven in Grade 1, two in Grade 2, and three in Grade 3. This shifting of the subjects to Grade 0 and 1 at 6 months postoperative was found to be significant with P = 0.0016.

In the canaliculoDCR group, preoperatively, five patients were in FDDT Grade 2 and ten were in Grade 3. At 6-month follow-up, we have noted four patients in Grade 0, six in Grade 1, one in Grade 2, and four in Grade 3. This shifting of the subjects to Grade 0 and 1 at 6 months postoperative was found to be significant with P = 0.0016. However, between both the groups, the postoperative outcomes at 6 months were comparable and there was no statistically significant difference with P > 0.9.

The functional success based on the subjective relief from epiphora (Kraft and Crawford grading) was 66.6% (n = 10) with a significant P = 0.0016 in canalicular trephination group and 53.3% (n = 8) with a significant P = 0.0047 in the canaliculoDCR group at the final follow-up of 6 months. However, between both the groups, the results were comparable and there was no statistically significant difference with P = 0.7.

In the canalicular trephination group, at the end of 6-month follow-up, 80% of patients were fully satisfied and 20% were not satisfied. In the canaliculoDCR group, 73.3% were fully satisfied, 6.6% were partially satisfied, and 20% were not satisfied. However, between both the groups, the patient satisfaction at 6 months was comparable and there was no statistically significant difference with P > 0.90 (>0.05).

The mean duration of surgery was compared in the two groups. It was 23.13 ± 3.20 min in canalicular trephination group and 57.4 ± 8.01 min in the canaliculoDCR group and the difference is found to be statistically significant with P < 0.0001.

The results of the study are summarized in the table cited [Table 4].
Table 4: Summary of the results of the study

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Treatment of canalicular obstructions presents a challenge to the surgeon given the fragile and minuscule nature of the passages. Current treatment modalities advocate a canaliculoDCR as the primary procedure in obstructions involving the common canaliculus.[34],[35] Our study intends to compare this rather major surgical procedure with a relatively shorter procedure of canalicular trephination and monocanalicular stenting. The length of the common canaliculus varies around 3–5 mm and our study is concerned regarding the obstructions spanning this territory.

Both the groups were comparable with regard to age, sex, duration of symptoms, and other demographic data. After the surgery, both the groups were evaluated for various parameters, at previously defined intervals till 6 months. The main parameters studied were mean tear film height, Schirmer's test, anatomical patency on syringing and probing, subjective relief from epiphora, and FDDT. The quantitative results of our patients in both the groups were found to be comparable at all the time intervals during the study, although there was a significant intra-group difference between preoperative and postoperative final follow-up values in all the parameters evaluated in the study.

The preoperative mean tear film height and mean Schirmer's value in both the groups showed a significant decrease postoperatively which correlated well with the improvement of the symptoms in the respective subjects. Success at the final follow-up was defined both on anatomical and functional outcomes. Anatomical success was defined by the free passage of fluid on syringing with the fluid felt in the throat which was noted to be 80% percent in trephination group and 73.3% in canaliculoDCR group. 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 FDDT which was based on the amount of dye persisting at the end of 5 min of its instillation in the lower fornix.

Outcomes of our study correlated well with the previous study by Zadeng et al. who described canalicular trephination in 24 patients with common and distal canalicular blocks and reported an anatomical success of 91.67% and 83.33% of patients with absent epiphora indicating functional success at a minimum of 8-month follow-up.[31]

Our study also correlated with the initial study of Sisler and Allarakhia who introduced the minitrephine and performed the procedure in 15 patients with distal canalicular obstructions and achieved an anatomical success rate of 83.3% at 6-month follow-up.[25],[26]

Our results correlated well with the study done by Khoubian et al. in which trephination and silicone stent intubation were done for the treatment of canalicular obstructions.[27] They reported success rate based on the relief from epiphora and found that distal lower canalicular obstructions had the highest success rate (80% complete and 20% partial relief of epiphora) and proximal bicanalicular obstructions had the lowest success rate (55% partial relief and 45% no improvement).

Few complications occurred in our study. Premature spontaneous stent extrusion was noted in one patient at 1-month follow-up in canalicular trephination group and in one patient at 2-month follow-up in the canaliculoDCR group both of whom had restenosis at 3-month follow-up. Restenosis after stent and silicone tube removal in the respective groups was noted in one patient in canalicular trephination group and in three patients in the canaliculoDCR group at 4-month follow-up.

The surgical duration for canalicular trephination was significantly less when compared to canaliculoDCR. The morbidity and the need for excessive manipulation were less and there was no postoperative visible scar in trephination. Hence, we recommend trephination as a primary intervention of choice in cases of common canalicular blocks.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Schittkowski MP, Guthoff RF. Results of lacrimal assessment in patients with congenital clinical anophthalmos or blind microphthalmos. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:1624-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Jager GV, Van Bijsterveld OP. Canalicular stenosis in the course of primary herpes simplex infection. Br J Ophthalmol 1997;81:332.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Tabbara KF, Bobb AA. Lacrimal system complications in trachoma. Ophthalmology 1980;87:298-301.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Esmaeli B, Valero V, Ahmadi MA, Booser D. Canalicular stenosis secondary to docetaxel (taxotere): A newly recognized side effect. Ophthalmology 2001;108:994-5.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
McCartney E, Valluri S, Rushing D, Burgett R. Upper and lower system nasolacrimal duct stenosis secondary to paclitaxel. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;23:170-1.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Fezza JP, Wesley RE, Klippenstein KA. The treatment of punctal and canalicular stenosis in patients on systemic 5-FU. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 1999;30:105-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
McNab AA. Lacrimal canalicular obstruction associated with topical ocular medication. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1998;26:219-23.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Durrani OM, Verity DH, Meligonis G, Rose GE. Bicanalicular obstruction in lichen planus: A characteristic pattern of disease. Ophthalmology 2008;115:386-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Takahashi Y, Kakizaki H, Nakano T, Asamoto K, Ichinose A, Iwaki M. Anatomy of the vertical lacrimal canaliculus and lacrimal punctum: A macroscopic study. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;27:384-6.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Liarakos VS, Boboridis KG, Mavrikakis E, Mavrikakis I. Management of canalicular obstructions. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2009;20:395-400.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Kashkouli MB, Pakdel F, Kiavash V. Assessment and management of proximal and incomplete symptomatic obstruction of the lacrimal drainage system. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2012;19:60-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
12.
Demirci H, Elner VM. Double silicone tube intubation for the management of partial lacrimal system obstruction. Ophthalmology 2008;115:383-5.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Anderson RL, Edwards JJ. Indications, complications and results with silicone stents. Ophthalmology 1979;86:1474-87.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Jones LT. Conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1965;59:773-83.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Jones LT. Lacrimal canalicular bypass tubes: Twenty five years' experience. Eye 1991;5:13-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Steinsaper KD, Glatt HJ, Putterman AM. A 16-year study of conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1991;109:387-93.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Sekhar GC, Dortzbach RK, Gonnering RS, Lemke BN. Problems associated with conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1991;112:502-6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Doucet TW, Hurwitz JJ. The broken Lester jones tube. Can J Ophthalmol 1982;17:32-3.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Skov CM, Mazow ML. Diplopia following jones tube placement. Ophthalmic Surg 1984;15:932-3.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Bartley GB, Gustafson RO. Complications of malpositioned Jones tubes. Am J Ophthalmol 1990;109:66-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Rosen N, Ashkenazi I, Rosner M. Patient dissatisfaction after functionally successful conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy with Jones tube. Am J Ophthalmol 1994;117:636-42.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Yoo JR, Choi WC. A survey of post-operative satisfaction in patient with canalicular obstruction after Jones tube intubation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2002;43:2081-8.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Wearne MJ, Beigi B, Davis G, Rose GE. Retrograde intubation dacryocystorhinostomy for proximal and midcanalicular obstruction. Ophthalmology 1999;106:2325-8.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Hurwitz JJ. Treatment of canalicular obstructions. Can J Ophthalmol 1982;17:13-6.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Sisler HA, Allarakhia L. A new ophthalmic microtrephine. Ophthalmic Surg 1990;21:656-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Sisler HA, Allarakhia L. New minitrephine makes lacrimal canalicular rehabilitation an office procedure. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 1990;6:203-6.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Khoubian JF, Kikkawa DO, Gonnering RS. Trephination and silicone stent intubation for the treatment of canalicular obstruction: Effect of the level of obstruction. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;22:248-52.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Lee J, Choi JB. The effectiveness of lacrimal trephination for the treatment of canalicular obstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2011;52:783-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Hussain RN, Kanani H, McMullan T. Use of mini-monoka stents for punctal/canalicular stenosis. Br J Ophthalmol 2012;96:671-3.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Nathoo NA, Rath S, Wan D, Buffam F. Trephination for canalicular obstruction: Experience in 45 eyes. Orbit 2013;32:281-4.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Zadeng Z, Singh M, Singh U. Role of lacrimal canalicular trephination and mini-monoka stent in the management of idiopathic distal canalicular obstructions: Our experience of 23 cases. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2014;3:27-31.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
MacEwen CJ, Young JD. The fluorescein disappearance test (FDT): An evaluation of its use in infants. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 1991;28:302-5.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Kraft SP, Crawford JS. Silicone tube intubation in disorders of the lacrimal system in children. Am J Ophthalmol 1982;94:290-9.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Grover AK, Gupta AK, Rastogi A. Modified canaliculo- dacryocystorhinostomy. Indian J Ophthalmol 1991;39:159-61.  Back to cited text no. 34
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
35.
Kumar S, Dulgach P, Kamal S, Goel R. Long-term success of modified external dacryocystorhinostomy for the treatment of distal common canalicular block. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 2013;2:94-8.  Back to cited text no. 35
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed376    
    Printed38    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded50    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal