泪道激光再造联合泪道逆行置管治疗泪道阻塞

目的：观察Nd：YAG泪道激光再造成形联合泪道逆行置管术治疗泪道阻塞的临床疗效及影响手术效果的因素。

方法：选取20例23眼泪道阻塞患者行Nd： YAG激光再造成形联合逆行泪道引流管留置3mo,拔管后随访3～ 12mo,观察术前患侧鼻腔情况,术中鼻腔损伤程度、术后流泪和流脓情况、泪道功能恢复及并发症情况。

结果：末次随访时,经此方法治疗各种泪道阻塞的患者治愈19眼(82.6%); 有效2眼(8.7%); 无效2眼(8.7%),总有效率91.3%。其中泪小管阻塞者有效率100%(2/2),泪总管阻塞者有效率100%(15/15),鼻泪管阻塞者有效率66.7%(2/3),泪小管合并鼻泪管阻塞者有效率66.7%(2/3)。1眼术后2wk左右有轻微眼部刺激症状,3眼出现泪小管周围组织红肿不适,2眼出现泪小点撕裂,无1例患者出现假道及泪道插管滑脱,余未见其他并发症发生。

结论：泪道激光再造成形联合逆行泪道引流管留置术治疗泪道阻塞是一种有效的治疗方法。     

泪道激光联合置管术治疗泪道阻塞性疾病的疗效观察

目的: 观察激光联合泪道置管治疗泪道阻塞性疾病疗效。方法: 泪道阻塞性疾病患者79例96眼,27眼(22眼泪小管、泪总管阻塞,5眼泪小管合并鼻泪管阻塞)行激光联合泪道引流管植入术;69眼(27眼鼻泪管阻塞,42眼慢性泪囊炎)行激光联合鼻泪管支架植入术。术后给予激素、抗生素眼药水点眼1wk,泪道引流管术后3～6mo顺利拔管,鼻泪管支架,4wk拔管,所有患者随访12mo。结果: 泪道引流管,鼻泪管支架取出后随访12mo,泪溢消失者79眼,泪溢好转者10眼,无效者7眼,泪溢但无脓,总有效率为93%,显效率82%。结论: 根据泪道阻塞部位选择泪道激光联合不同硅胶管植入是治疗泪道阻塞性疾病简便有效的方法,值得在基层医院推广。     

泪道激光成形术的疗效观察

目的 探讨泪道激光成形加留置导管术治疗泪道阻塞的疗效。方法 选择泪小管、泪总管、鼻泪管阻塞泪溢者223例(267只眼)，在结膜囊表面麻醉下，行泪道激光成形加留置导管术，1月后拔管，连续冲洗泪道7天。结果 治愈248只眼(92．88％)，有效8只眼(3．00％)，无效11只限(4．12％)。结论 泪道激光成形加留置导管术是治疗泪道阻塞的可靠方法。     

泪道激光联合泪道插管治疗各型泪道阻塞的疗效观察

目的 评价Nd:YAG激光联合泪道插管治疗泪道阻塞的疗效.方法 对415例(450只眼)泪道阻塞患者均采用Nd:YAC激光联合泪道插管手术治疗.结果 术后随访6个月以上,单纯泪点闭锁10只眼,治愈10只眼,治愈率100%;单纯泪小管阻塞147只眼,治愈126只眼,好转12只眼,无效9只眼,有效率93.88%;单纯泪总管阻塞158只眼,治愈137只眼,好转10只眼,无效11只眼,有效率93.04%;鼻泪管阻塞42只眼,治愈32只眼,好转6只眼,无效4只眼,有效率90.48%;泪点和泪小管阻塞7只眼,治愈5只眼,好转2只眼,有效率100.00%;泪小管和泪总管阻塞86只眼,治愈72只眼,好转5只眼,无效9只眼,有效率89.53%.结论 泪道激光联合泪道插管治疗泪道阻塞具有无痛苦、损伤小和疗效好等特点,值得推广.     

激光联合不同硅胶管植入治疗不同部位泪道阻塞的疗效

目的：：观察激光联合新型一次性使用泪道再通管( RS型)或泪道扩张引流管(鼻泪管)治疗不同部位泪道阻塞疾病的疗效。方法：针对2011-01/2013-12我院548例657眼泪道阻塞患者,其中泪小管(含泪总管)阻塞患者236例298眼,采用KTP激光联合泪道再通管( RS型)植入术;鼻泪管阻塞患者312例359眼,采用KTP激光联合泪道扩张引流管(鼻泪管)植入术,术后坚持泪道冲洗,手术3 mo后拔除支架,以拔管后3 mo冲洗泪道情况及患者自觉溢泪情况作为评定标准。结果：泪小管(或泪总管)阻塞的患者行KTP激光联合新型RS型泪道再通管植入术,其中治愈248眼,好转33眼,无效17眼;鼻泪管阻塞的患者行KTP激光联合泪道扩张引流管植入术,其中治愈301眼,好转19眼,无效39眼。有效601眼,总有效率91.5％。结论：泪道阻塞患者治疗过程中需制定个性化治疗方案,针对泪道不同部位阻塞激光联合不同硅胶管植入经临床观察疗效肯定,可作为基层医院泪道阻塞患者首选治疗方式。     

观察KTP激光融通泪道阻塞后不同留置物的疗效对比

目的:观察泪道激光融通泪道阻塞后不同留置物对不同部位泪道阻塞的治疗效果的差异,并对结果进行分析。方法:各种原因所致泪道阻塞179例299眼。按照病因分成泪小管阻塞组43例74眼,鼻泪管阻塞组82例134眼,泪小管合并鼻泪管阻塞组54例91眼。泪小管阻塞患者随机分成两组,留置硅胶管组37眼,留置丝线组37眼。鼻泪管阻塞患者随机分成3组:留置硅胶管组44眼;留置丝线组44眼,留置T型泪道支撑管组46眼。泪小管合并鼻泪管阻塞患者随机分成两组:留置丝线联合T型泪道支撑管组45眼,留置带泪小管扩张管的硅胶泪道留置管组46眼。分别留置硅胶管、丝线、T型泪道支撑管、带泪小管扩张管的硅胶管。随访3~6mo,观察泪道引流泪液功能的恢复情况,并将各种疗效对比分析。结果:泪小管阻塞患者留置丝线:治愈率89.2％,有效率8.1％;留置硅胶管:治愈率62.2％,有效率21.3％。鼻泪管阻塞患者,留置丝线组:治愈率52.3%,有效率34.1％;留置硅胶管组:治愈率59.1％,有效率34.1％;留置T型泪道支撑管组:治愈率80.4％,有效率8.7％。泪小管合并鼻泪管阻塞患者,留置丝线联合T型泪道支撑管组:治愈率82.2%,有效率6.67％;留置带泪小管扩张管的硅胶管组:治愈率60.9%,有效率19.6％。结论:临床结果提示,泪道阻塞留置物的选择应该根据泪道阻塞的部位、阻塞的严重程度、病程、治疗情况、患者的依从性等从多方面综合考虑,针对每位患者的具体情况,个性化选择,力求达到最佳的治疗效果。     

新型泪道支撑管逆行置管联合泪道激光治疗慢性泪囊炎及泪道阻塞

目的 观察泪道激光后运用新型泪道支撑管逆行置管及碘必舒眼膏治疗慢性泪囊炎及泪道阻塞的效果.方法 127例(139眼)其中:慢性泪囊炎55眼、鼻泪管阻塞52眼、泪小管及鼻泪管阻塞23眼、单纯泪小管阻塞9眼.先用倍频Nd:YAG激光疏通泪道阻塞部位后,将新型硅胶泪道支撑管表面涂碘必殊眼膏后逆行置入阻塞的泪道部位.结果 术后随访6～12个月,治愈104眼,好转27眼,无效8眼.结论 新型泪道支撑管逆行置管联合泪道激光及碘必舒眼膏治疗慢性泪囊炎及泪道阻塞,操作简单、手术安全、疗效可靠、组织损伤小、皮肤不留瘢痕、且可重复手术.     

激光泪道成形术治疗阻塞性泪道疾病1384例的疗效分析

目的 观察掺钕钇铝石榴石(neodymium-yttrium aluminum garnet, Nd:YAG)激光泪道成形术治疗阻塞性泪道疾病的疗效,并对泪道不同阻塞部位的疗效进行分析.方法 采用Nd:YAG激光泪道成形术治疗1 384 例(1 707眼) 阻塞性泪道疾病患者,按泪道阻塞的部位分为泪小点阻塞(35眼)、泪小管阻塞(625眼)、泪总管阻塞(598 眼)和鼻泪管阻塞(449 眼).术后定期冲洗泪道,随访6个月至3年,将各组疗效进行对比分析.结果 泪小点阻塞、泪小管阻塞、泪总管阻塞及鼻泪管阻塞组的治愈率分别为74.3%、40.0%、36.1 %和31.8 %,有效率分别为94.3 %、57.9%、51.2 %和43.8 %.结论 单纯Nd:YAG激光泪道成形术治疗泪小点阻塞效果最好,而治疗泪小管阻塞、泪总管阻塞及鼻泪管阻塞组的效果欠佳.(中国眼耳鼻喉科杂志,2009,9:101-102)     

泪道激光联合新型泪道支架植入治疗鼻泪管阻塞

目的：探讨Nd:YAG激光联合新型泪道支架植入治疗鼻泪管阻塞的疗效。 方法：鼻泪管阻塞者26例29眼在激光泪道疏通后,植入新型泪道支架。术后定期冲洗泪道。 结果：随访9～12mo,治愈22眼,好转5眼,总有效率93％。无效2眼（7％）。 结论：泪道激光联合新型泪道支架治疗鼻泪管阻塞操作安全简便,对组织损伤小,是治疗鼻泪管阻塞、慢性泪囊炎的有效方法。     

泪道激光术后联合泪道引流管环形置入术治疗慢性泪囊炎及泪道阻塞

目的评价泪道激光术后联合泪道引流管环形置入术治疗慢性泪囊炎及泪道阻塞的疗效。方法对86例113眼慢性泪囊炎及泪道阻塞患者进行"泪道激光术后联合泪道引流管环形置入术"治疗。结果术后随访6-12个月,慢性泪囊炎患者58例71眼,鼻泪道阻塞患者28例42眼,治愈91只眼,占80.5%;好转16只眼,占14.2%;无效6只眼,占5.3%。有效率为94.7%。结论泪道激光术后联合泪道引流管环形置入术具有手术操作简单、无创、手术时间短、术后效果满意的优点,可作为慢性泪囊炎及泪道阻塞的首选治疗方法。     

泪道激光加置泪道引流管治疗泪道阻塞的疗效分析

目的:观察泪道激光治疗后置入泪道引流管的疗效。方法:激光疏通泪道后,分别由上下泪小点插入泪道硅胶管,由下鼻道捞出硅胶管并打结留置3mo。结果:共治疗1070例,泪溢消失者共518例,泪溢好转者283例,无效者269例,总有效率为71.68%。结论:泪道激光加置泪道引流管可提高泪道激光治疗的成功率。     

激光泪小点成形术/泪小点切开术联合泪道置管治疗泪小点狭窄

目的:分析我院激光泪小点成形术/泪小点切开术联合泪道插管治疗泪小点狭窄的可行性、适应证及疗效。方法:回顾性分析我院2009-01/2010-06门诊确诊并行手术的泪小点狭窄或膜闭病例37例41眼。其中20例22眼行Nd:YAG激光泪小点成形联合置管术,17例19眼行泪小点切开联合置管术。拔管后随访3～12mo,随访时观察、记录患者的溢泪情况、泪小点形态和功能恢复情况及手术并发症情况。结果:截至末次随访,两种术式的有效率均为100%,激光联合置管术的治愈率为82%;切开联合置管术的治愈率为79%,两种术式的治愈率未见明显差异。先天性泪小点闭锁的治愈率为100%。泪点周围组织红肿伴眼痒者2例;泪小点撕裂者1例;泪道肉芽增生者1例。无引流管自行滑脱病例。结论:激光泪小点成形术/泪小点切开术联合泪道置管治疗泪小点狭窄疗效肯定。激光联合置管术治疗泪小点狭窄或膜闭手术操作简便,可作为常规术式进行推广。先天性泪小点闭锁可视为切开联合置管术的手术适应证。     

顺行法泪道插管与单纯泪道冲洗治疗泪道阻塞疗效比较

目的:通过比较顺行式泪道插管与单纯泪道冲洗治疗的疗效,探讨治疗泪道阻塞的方法。方法:对泪道阻塞患者140例140眼随机分为观察组和对照组,其中观察组75眼行顺行式泪道插管,单纯泪道冲洗组65眼对照眼,术后随访6～12mo。结果:观察组治愈65眼,治愈率86.7%,复发1眼,对照组治愈45眼,治愈率69.2%,复发2眼,两组治愈、复发率比较均有显著性。结论:顺行法程氏泪道插管术具有操作简单、方便易行、经济实用等优点,该项治疗泪道阻塞方法的方法适于在基层医院推广。     

KTP激光击射后植入胶原泪栓治疗泪点闭锁

目的探讨泪点闭锁用KTP激光击射后植入可溶性胶原泪栓的疗效.方法对21例(23眼)泪点闭锁用KTP激光击通闭锁的泪点后,用显微平镊将可溶性胶原泪栓植入泪点内.结果21例(23)眼经1次激光联合可溶性胶原泪栓治疗后均无溢泪症状,随访3～6月.泪点形成,泪道冲洗通畅.本组病例均治愈.结论KTP激光击射后再植入胶原泪栓是治疗泪点闭锁的一种有效的方法.     

泪道内镜下治疗泪道阻塞性疾病的初步观察

Objective To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of lacrimal endoscope treatment for lacrimal passage obstruction, and to compare the effectiveness of endoscopically controlled laser surgery and micro-drill surgery for lacrimal passage obstruction. Methods It was a prospective random controlled trial. Eighty nine patients (104 eyes) with lacrimal passage obstruction, including presaccal canalicular obstruction (PSCO) and nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO), were collected from September 2006 to December 2006 in Department of Ophthalmology, Union Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Patients were examined by endoscopy of the lacrimal drainage system under local anesthesia to detect the obstruction and changes of lacrimal mucous membrane. The obstructions were treated with laser or microdrill. Irrigation was performed to prove the recanalization of the lacrimal passage followed by injected ointment with 0.3% tobramycin and 0.1% dexamethasone into the lacrimal passage. All patients were followed up after the operation for 9-12 months. The difference between the laser and the microdrill treatment was observed. Chi-square test was used to evaluate the curative effect and complications differences between these two groups. Results The obstruction scene in the lacrimal passage of 89 patients could be observed effectively. All obstructions (104/104 eyes) were eliminated after the operation. Through the follow-up, the cure rate reached 78.85% (82/104 eyes). The cure rate of PSCO group and NLDO group, reached 77.78% (42/54 eyes) and 80.00% (40/50 eyes), respectively (χ2=0.077,P=0.782). The cure rate of laser group and micro-drill group, was 80.43% (37/46 eyes) and 77.59% (45/58 eyes), respectively (χ2=0.125,P=0.724). The cure rate of laser treatment was 89.66% (26/29 eyes) in the PSCO group and 64.71% (11/17 eyes) in the NLDO group (P=0.040). The cure rate of micro-drill treatment was 64.00% (16/25 eyes) in the PSCO group and 87.88% (29/33 eyes) in the NLDO group (χ2=4.664,P=0.031). Hemorrhage and palpebral edema occurred in 10.87% (5/46 eyes) and 4.35% (2/46 eyes) after laser treatment, respectively. Percentage of hemorrhage and palpebral edema after the micro-drill treatment was 55.17% (32/58 eyes) (compared to the laser group, χ2=21.969,P=0.000) and 6.90% (4/58 eyes) (compared to the laser group, χ2=0.017 ,P=0.896). Conclusions Lacrimal passage obstruction can be observed and treated directly through the endoscopy of lacrimal drainage system. Choosing an appropriate surgical procedure according to the locations of the obstruction can be helpful for improving the effectiveness of the operation.     

泪道内镜下治疗泪道阻塞性疾病的初步观察

Objective To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of lacrimal endoscope treatment for lacrimal passage obstruction, and to compare the effectiveness of endoscopically controlled laser surgery and micro-drill surgery for lacrimal passage obstruction. Methods It was a prospective random controlled trial. Eighty nine patients (104 eyes) with lacrimal passage obstruction, including presaccal canalicular obstruction (PSCO) and nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO), were collected from September 2006 to December 2006 in Department of Ophthalmology, Union Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Patients were examined by endoscopy of the lacrimal drainage system under local anesthesia to detect the obstruction and changes of lacrimal mucous membrane. The obstructions were treated with laser or microdrill. Irrigation was performed to prove the recanalization of the lacrimal passage followed by injected ointment with 0.3% tobramycin and 0.1% dexamethasone into the lacrimal passage. All patients were followed up after the operation for 9-12 months. The difference between the laser and the microdrill treatment was observed. Chi-square test was used to evaluate the curative effect and complications differences between these two groups. Results The obstruction scene in the lacrimal passage of 89 patients could be observed effectively. All obstructions (104/104 eyes) were eliminated after the operation. Through the follow-up, the cure rate reached 78.85% (82/104 eyes). The cure rate of PSCO group and NLDO group, reached 77.78% (42/54 eyes) and 80.00% (40/50 eyes), respectively (χ2=0.077,P=0.782). The cure rate of laser group and micro-drill group, was 80.43% (37/46 eyes) and 77.59% (45/58 eyes), respectively (χ2=0.125,P=0.724). The cure rate of laser treatment was 89.66% (26/29 eyes) in the PSCO group and 64.71% (11/17 eyes) in the NLDO group (P=0.040). The cure rate of micro-drill treatment was 64.00% (16/25 eyes) in the PSCO group and 87.88% (29/33 eyes) in the NLDO group (χ2=4.664,P=0.031). Hemorrhage and palpebral edema occurred in 10.87% (5/46 eyes) and 4.35% (2/46 eyes) after laser treatment, respectively. Percentage of hemorrhage and palpebral edema after the micro-drill treatment was 55.17% (32/58 eyes) (compared to the laser group, χ2=21.969,P=0.000) and 6.90% (4/58 eyes) (compared to the laser group, χ2=0.017 ,P=0.896). Conclusions Lacrimal passage obstruction can be observed and treated directly through the endoscopy of lacrimal drainage system. Choosing an appropriate surgical procedure according to the locations of the obstruction can be helpful for improving the effectiveness of the operation.     

泪道内镜下治疗泪道阻塞性疾病的初步观察

目的 探讨泪道内窥镜对泪道阻塞性疾病的治疗效果,并比较泪道激光和微型电钻对阻塞部位的探通治愈率和并发症发生率.方法 前瞻性随机对照临床试验.2006年9至12月在华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院眼科对89例(104只眼)上泪道阻塞(包括泪小管阻塞、泪总管阻塞)(PSCO)与鼻泪管阻寒(NLDO)的患者于局部麻醉下使用泪道内镜进行泪道检查,了解泪道黏膜和阻塞情况,针对阻塞部位进行激光或微型电钻处理,泪道冲洗通畅后,注入0.3%妥布霉素+0.1%地塞米松眼膏.术后随访9～12个月,观察疗效与并发症,比较激光与微型电钻对不同阻塞部位治疗的效果和应用特点.疗效与并发症分析采用χ2检验.结果 89例患者的泪道阻塞状况和部位均能被有效观察.术中泪道阻塞再通率为100.00%(104/104),术后随访治愈率78.85%(82/104).PSCO和NLDO治愈率分别为77.78%(42/54)、80.00%(40/50)(χ2=0.077,P=0.782).激光和微型电钻治愈率分别为80.43%(37/46)、77.59%(45/58)(χ2=0.125,P=0.724).泪道激光治疗PSCO、NLDO治愈率分别为89.66%(26/29)、64.71%(11/17)(χ2=4.239,P=0.040),微型电钻治疗PSCO、NLDO治愈率分别为64.00%(16/25)、87.88%(29/33)(χ2=4.664,P=0.031).激光治疗组和微型电钻治疗组术中出血发生率分别为10.87%(5/46)、55.17%(32/58)(χ2=21.969,P=0.000),激光治疗组和微型电钻治疗组术中眼睑水肿发生率分别为4.35%(2/46)、6.90%(4/58)(χ2=0.017,P=0.896).结论 泪道内镜能在直视下对泪道阻塞性疾病进行精确观察和针对性治疗.针对不同阻塞部位选择不同治疗方法将有助于提高患者手术效果.     

泪道内镜下治疗泪道阻塞性疾病的初步观察

Objective To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of lacrimal endoscope treatment for lacrimal passage obstruction, and to compare the effectiveness of endoscopically controlled laser surgery and micro-drill surgery for lacrimal passage obstruction. Methods It was a prospective random controlled trial. Eighty nine patients (104 eyes) with lacrimal passage obstruction, including presaccal canalicular obstruction (PSCO) and nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO), were collected from September 2006 to December 2006 in Department of Ophthalmology, Union Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Patients were examined by endoscopy of the lacrimal drainage system under local anesthesia to detect the obstruction and changes of lacrimal mucous membrane. The obstructions were treated with laser or microdrill. Irrigation was performed to prove the recanalization of the lacrimal passage followed by injected ointment with 0.3% tobramycin and 0.1% dexamethasone into the lacrimal passage. All patients were followed up after the operation for 9-12 months. The difference between the laser and the microdrill treatment was observed. Chi-square test was used to evaluate the curative effect and complications differences between these two groups. Results The obstruction scene in the lacrimal passage of 89 patients could be observed effectively. All obstructions (104/104 eyes) were eliminated after the operation. Through the follow-up, the cure rate reached 78.85% (82/104 eyes). The cure rate of PSCO group and NLDO group, reached 77.78% (42/54 eyes) and 80.00% (40/50 eyes), respectively (χ2=0.077,P=0.782). The cure rate of laser group and micro-drill group, was 80.43% (37/46 eyes) and 77.59% (45/58 eyes), respectively (χ2=0.125,P=0.724). The cure rate of laser treatment was 89.66% (26/29 eyes) in the PSCO group and 64.71% (11/17 eyes) in the NLDO group (P=0.040). The cure rate of micro-drill treatment was 64.00% (16/25 eyes) in the PSCO group and 87.88% (29/33 eyes) in the NLDO group (χ2=4.664,P=0.031). Hemorrhage and palpebral edema occurred in 10.87% (5/46 eyes) and 4.35% (2/46 eyes) after laser treatment, respectively. Percentage of hemorrhage and palpebral edema after the micro-drill treatment was 55.17% (32/58 eyes) (compared to the laser group, χ2=21.969,P=0.000) and 6.90% (4/58 eyes) (compared to the laser group, χ2=0.017 ,P=0.896). Conclusions Lacrimal passage obstruction can be observed and treated directly through the endoscopy of lacrimal drainage system. Choosing an appropriate surgical procedure according to the locations of the obstruction can be helpful for improving the effectiveness of the operation.