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。     

U型插管法在泪道重建中的应用

目的：探讨U型插管法在泪道重建中的应用价值。方法：用硬膜外麻醉导管U型泪道插管的方法,对下泪小管断裂、泪小点狭窄、鼻泪管阻塞患者进行治疗。结果：21例下泪小管断裂者全部成功(其中2例泪囊切开,逆行找泪小管鼻侧断端),3例泪小点狭窄者2例成功,14例鼻泪管阻塞者11例成功。结论：U型插管法在泪道重建中方法简便、固定良好、不影响美观、留置时间长、效果确切。     

先天性鼻泪管阻塞伴泪小管阻塞的泪道探通术

目的探讨先天性鼻泪管阻塞合并泪小管阻塞的患儿泪道探通术的效果。方法此病患儿27例（29眼）作为研究组,单纯鼻泪管阻塞23例（30眼）作为对照组。两组均行常规的泪道探通术,应用荧光染料消失试验（FDDT）及泪道冲洗方法,观察治疗效果。结果研究组中合并下泪小管阻塞13例（14眼）,合并上泪小管阻塞者14例（15眼）,成功疏通鼻泪管阻塞26眼,治愈率89．7％;对照组30眼治愈27眼,（治愈率90．0％）,两组之间比较差异无统计学意义,χ2=0．002,P=0．965。成功疏通泪小管者在29眼中仅有11眼,占37．9％。术后FDDT比较,伴有泪小管阻塞组FD—DT0级小于对照组,FDDT1-2级大于对照组,χ2=7．096,P=0．029。鼻泪管探通成功但泪小管探通失败,仅存单个正常泪小管的17眼,仅存的上或下泪小管一部分能够起到有效的引流泪液的功能（上泪小管阻塞FDDT0级4眼,FDDT1级6眼,FDDT2级1眼,下泪小管阻塞FDDT0级1眼,FDDT1级3眼,FDDT2级2眼）。结论先天性鼻泪管阻塞伴泪小管阻塞的患儿,只要存在一个正常泪小管,应用泪道探通术解除鼻泪管阻塞的前提下,患儿溢泪症状较术前均有明显改善,单纯鼻泪管阻塞患儿术后泪液引流作用要好于合并泪小管阻塞者,上或下泪小管均可能起到有效的引流泪液的功能。     

两种泪道探通冲洗术治疗先天性鼻泪管阻塞的疗效比较

目的:比较改良的冲洗式泪道探通术与泪道探通冲洗一体式治疗先天性鼻泪管阻塞的治疗效果。方法:选取2008-07/2012-09在我院门诊就诊的252例273眼先天性鼻泪管阻塞的患儿,作为本次的观察对象;其中140例156眼行改良的冲洗式泪道探通,112例117眼行泪道探通冲洗一体式治疗,比较两种方法的治疗效果,并随访1wk～1mo。结果:改良冲洗式泪道探通术一次性探通成功152眼,术后随访有2眼再次阻塞;泪道探通冲洗一体式一次性探通成功107眼,术后随访有8眼再次阻塞;两组比较差异明显具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:改良的冲洗式泪道探通术对先天性鼻泪管阻塞的治疗效果明显优于泪道探通冲洗一体式。     

泪道探通联合硅胶支撑管环形置入的临床应用

目的观察泪道探通联合泪道内硅胶支撑管环形置入在鼻泪管阻塞及泪小管断裂中的临床效果。方法对鼻泪管阻塞48例（53眼）及泪小管断裂24例（24眼）,共72例（77眼）,施行泪道探通联合泪道内硅胶支撑管环形置管治疗。结果术后随访6月～1年,治愈58眼,好转15眼,无效4眼。结论泪道探通联合泪道内硅胶支撑管环形置入是治疗鼻泪管阻塞及泪小管断裂的有效方法。     

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。     

硅胶泪道引流管治疗泪道阻塞性疾病的临床观察

目的:探讨运用硅胶泪道引流管逆行泪道插管术治疗泪道阻塞性疾病的手术效果.方法:对68例83眼鼻泪管阻塞患者选用球头型硅胶管逆行插管术,对26例37眼泪小管或泪总管阻塞患者选用引线型硅胶管逆行插管术.结果:术后随访6～12mo,球头型硅胶管治疗组有效率87%,引线型硅胶管治疗组有效率73%.结论:逆行泪道插入硅胶泪道引流管治疗泪道阻塞性疾病,办法简便,效果良好,适合基层医院临床推广.     

盐酸赛洛唑啉喷鼻联合泪道激光置管术治疗鼻泪管阻塞

目的：研究鼻腔炎症对鼻泪管阻塞的影响,探讨赛洛唑啉鼻喷雾剂在鼻泪管阻塞治疗中的作用,为泪道病治疗及病因分析提供依据。

方法：收集鼻泪管阻塞患者279例,所有研究对象术前行泪道冲洗、泪道CT造影、鼻内镜检查。279例患者均行泪道激光成型+置管术,A组137例患者术后抗生素及非甾体抗炎药滴眼液点眼,B组142例患者术后抗生素及非甾体抗炎药滴眼液点眼联合赛洛唑啉鼻喷雾剂喷鼻治疗。

结果：参与研究的279例患者中,有217例(77.8%)患者鼻腔有炎症表现,其中A组105例(76.6%),B组112例(78.9%),主要为鼻腔黏膜充血、下鼻甲肥大、中鼻甲肥大等。拔管3mo后,A组137例患者有效率为86.1%,B组142例患者有效率为95.8%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论：鼻腔炎症是鼻泪管阻塞发病的重要因素,在泪道阻塞的诊疗过程中,临床医生需重视鼻腔炎症的治疗,泪道激光成型+人工鼻泪管置入术联合盐酸赛洛唑啉鼻用喷雾剂喷鼻治疗鼻泪管阻塞可明显提高鼻泪管阻塞的治愈率。     

泪道内镜下环钻术治疗复发性上泪道阻塞的临床研究

目的 探讨在泪道内镜下行环钻术治疗复发性上泪道阻塞的方法及其临床疗效.方法 回顾性系列病例研究.收集2007年2月至2008年2月南京医科大学第二附属医院眼科67例(73只眼)复发性上泪道阻塞患者的病历资料.患者局部麻醉后在泪道内镜下通过检查确定阻塞性质和部位,然后采用微型环钻清除泪道阻塞物并置人硅胶管治疗,拔管后随访6个月,观察疗效.结果 术后3～5个月,73只眼均顺利拔管.其中51只眼(69.86%)治愈,即无流泪,泪道冲洗通畅;19只眼(26.03%)好转,即轻微流泪,泪道冲洗通,但不畅;3只眼(4.11%)无效,即仍流泪,泪道冲洗不通.有效率为95.89%(70/73).且上下泪小管阻塞合并鼻泪管阻塞的有效率低于单纯下泪小管阻塞或泪总管阻塞.结论 泪道内镜下环钻术是一种安全、有效的治疗复发性上泪道阻塞的手术,可明显提高治疗复发性上泪道阻塞的成功率.     

Ballooning canaliculoplasty after lacrimal trephination in monocanalicular and common canalicular obstruction

Purpose  To evaluate the clinical effect of balloon canaliculoplasty with LacriCATH after lacrimal trephination in monocanalicular and common canalicular obstruction. Methods  Silicone intubation following ballooning dilation with a 2-mm-diameter catheter after lacrimal trephination was attempted in 66 eyes of 62 patients (10 men, 52 women; mean age, 67.3 years; age range, 34–77 years) with epiphora due to monocanalicular or common canalicular obstruction between January 2003 and February 2005. A total of 56 of the 66 eyes had common canalicular obstruction, and ten had monocanalicular obstruction. Results  The cause of obstruction in 54 (81.8%) eyes was idiopathic. Overall initial technical improvement was achieved in 64 (97.0%) eyes (common canalicular obstruction, 56/56, 100%; monocanalicular obstruction, 8/10, 80.0%) Immediate clinical improvement was achieved in 54 eyes (81.8%). The cumulative patency rates at the last clinic visit were 53.6% in cases of common canalicular obstruction and 25.0% in cases of monocanalicular obstruction. Causes of failure were combined nasolacrimal duct obstruction, recurrent monocanalicular obstruction, and acute canaliculitis. Conclusions  Balloon canaliculoplasty after lacrimal trephination is a simple and safe method that may be a good alternative treatment for common canalicular and distal canalicular obstructions, before resorting to conjunctivodacryorhinostomy with Jones tube insertion. A shorter version of this paper was presented at a meeting of the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, New Orleans, LA, USA, in October 2004     

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.     

激光联合泪道逆行置管治疗全泪道阻塞的临床观察

目的观察新型材料制成的泪道全管与激光联合治疗全泪道阻塞（泪小管＋鼻泪管）的治疗效果。方法西安市第一医院眼科门诊从2010年10月至2011年3月就诊的泪小管或泪总管加泪囊阻塞的患者69例（69只眼）均接受激光疏通＋鼻腔逆行置管的方法治疗,观察患者的症状和泪道疏通情况。结果所有患者顺利完成手术,术中未出现并发症,术后观察3～6个月,治愈56例（81.2%）,有效5例（8.4%）,无效8例（11.6%）。结论激光联合泪道逆行置管（全管）治疗全泪道阻塞,疗效满意,手术安全,简便,创伤小,值得临床推广应用。     

泪道探通配合插管留置术的疗效分析

目的:观察泪道探通配合插管留置术治疗泪道阻塞的手术疗效,分析影响疗效的因素.方法:采用泪道探通配合插管留置术治疗60例(90眼)泪道阻塞患者,术后3mo拔管,随访6mo,将阻塞部位不同和既往不同治疗史的疗效分别进行对比分析.结果:阻塞部位在泪小管,泪总管和鼻泪管的成功率分别为85.7%,75.8%,53.5%.经x 2检验,阻塞部位在泪小管与在泪总管的手术疗效相同(P＞0.05),阻塞部位在鼻泪管的手术疗效均低于阻塞部位在泪小管或在泪总管的(P＜0.05).既往做过泪道激光手术疗效均低于未做过手术或曾做过泪道探通配合插管术(P＜0.05).曾做过泪道探通配合插管术再次手术不影响疗效(P＞0.05).结论:泪道探通配合插管留置术治疗泪道阻塞经济,简单,方便,治疗泪小管与泪总管阻塞效果好,手术失败再次手术仍有价值,但不适合治疗泪道激光手术失败后的病例.     

逆行植入球头硅胶管术治疗鼻泪管阻塞的临床分析

目的:分析和探讨鼻泪管逆行植入球头硅胶管术治疗鼻泪管阻塞的临床疗效。方法:对101例122眼鼻泪管阻塞的患者行鼻泪管逆行植入球头硅胶管术,随访6～24mo,观察其疗效。结果:治愈105眼(86.1%),好转12眼(9.8%),无效5眼(4.1%),总有效率95.9%。结论:逆行置入球头硅胶管治疗鼻泪管阻塞方法简便、安全省时、无切口、出血少、不改变原有的解剖结构、成功率高。鼻泪管逆行植入球头硅胶管术是一种有效的鼻泪管阻塞治疗方法。     

Clinical efficacy of the polyurethane stent without fluoroscopic guidance in the treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of the polyurethane (Song) stent in the treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction without fluoroscopic guidance, especially at the junction between the lacrimal sac and nasolacrimal duct or at the nasolacrimal duct. DESIGN: Retrospective noncomparative case series. PARTICIPANTS: This study evaluated 59 cases of nasolacrimal duct obstruction in 53 patients, with mean epiphora of 36 months (range, 2 months-17 years). METHODS: Without the assistance of a radiologist, a polyurethane nasolacrimal stent was placed by introducing a guidewire through the superior or inferior punctum into the canaliculus and advancing it across the obstruction into the opening of the inferior meatus of the nasal cavity. The mean follow-up period was 22 months (range, 12 months-48 months). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patency of the lacrimal passage to irrigation and the duration of this procedure. RESULTS: Complete resolution of epiphora was accomplished in 55 (93.2%) of the 59 eyes. There was recurrence of epiphora in four cases because of obstruction of the stent in three cases and obstruction of the common canaliculus by recurrent dacryocystitis in one case. CONCLUSIONS: Polyurethane stenting without fluoroscopic guidance seems to be a valuable technique for primary management of nasolacrimal duct obstruction before dacryocystorhinostomy.     

Anatomic position of the common canaliculus in patients with a large lacrimal sac

PURPOSE: To study the canalicular anatomy in patients with an enlarged sac secondary to nasolacrimal duct obstruction. METHODS: This study included 76 lacrimal drainage systems (LDS) of 41 adult patients with a palpable sac, which were visualized using posteroanterior digital subtraction macrodacryocystography. In 42 LDS, there was a palpable enlarged sac secondary to nasolacrimal duct obstruction. In 20 LDS, the sac enlargement was associated with a valve-type canalicular obstruction preventing retrograde reflux of the sac content, and in 22 LDS, there was no associated canalicular obstruction. Thirty-four LDS were either normal or had a nasolacrimal duct obstruction without a palpable sac. RESULTS: Dacryocystography showed a common canaliculus in all LDS. In 35 (83%) of 42 LDS with a palpable sac (17 LDS with and 18 LDS without canalicular obstruction), the anatomic orientation of the common canaliculus in the superior-inferior direction showed a consistent change. The common canaliculus was bending inferiorly with a sharp angle as it was coursing to the sac. In all LDS with a nonpalpable sac, the common canaliculus had an approximately direct, horizontal, or slightly upward course to the sac. CONCLUSIONS: Lacrimal sac enlargement secondary to nasolacrimal duct obstruction changes the anatomic orientation of the common canaliculus. The canaliculus shows an acute, inferior angulation from the superior-to-inferior direction while coursing to the sac in most instances. This anatomic variation should be considered during lacrimal interventions.     

先天性鼻泪管阻塞首次探通失败再治疗的临床分析

目的：分析我院就诊的28例首次泪道探通失败的先天性鼻泪管阻塞病例资料,总结再治疗策略。

方法：回顾性研究,选取2013-02-01/2017-12-31在我院就诊的591例患儿中的28例,均为首次泪道探通失败的先天性鼻泪管阻塞患儿(不包括外伤性和先天性泪道畸形),收集病史、鼻腔情况、首次探通年龄,治疗前后情况等病例资料。

结果：患儿28例中,15例经再次泪道探通联合置管术,取管后已治愈; 10例患儿经下鼻甲处理后,再次泪道探通联合置管术,取管后已治愈; 2例患儿经常发作急性泪囊炎,在全身麻醉下行鼻内窥镜下鼻腔泪囊吻合术; 1例骨性鼻泪管狭窄和阻塞患儿,有溢泪不伴溢脓,建议定期随访,13岁后鼻窦发育完全后行鼻内窥镜下鼻腔泪囊吻合术。

结论：先天性鼻泪管阻塞首次泪道探通失败再治疗需采取个性化的阶梯治疗方案,合理治疗该疾病。     

Value of nasal endoscopy and probing in the diagnosis and management of children with congenital epiphora

BACKGROUND: Congenital nasolacrimal obstruction is usually the result of failure of canalisation of the distal end of the nasolacrimal duct. The most common outcome is spontaneous resolution, but some children do require surgical treatment by probing. Probing is a blind procedure with a recognised failure rate. METHODS: In 52 lacrimal systems of 40 children nasal endoscopy was combined with a "stepwise" systematic probing in an attempt to improve the outcome and reduce the number of repeat procedures. RESULTS: Combined nasal endoscopy and probing improved the understanding of outflow obstruction in young children. The success of the procedure depended upon the level of the obstruction within the outflow system. Formation of a false passage was seen in six cases (15%). The probe was rerouted under direct visualisation in these cases to form a functioning passage. Reasons for failure were identified in those who did not have a successful outcome and only one repeat procedure was required. CONCLUSION: Using nasal endoscopy the area of lacrimal outflow obstruction at the lower end of the nasolacrimal duct can be observed directly and it is possible to guide the progress of probing under direct vision. This gives better information about the nature of the obstruction, minimises the formation of false passages, and allows a wider range of treatment options under a single anaesthetic.     

环形硅胶管联合丝裂霉素C治疗上泪道阻塞

目的:探讨泪道置环形硅胶管联合丝裂霉素C治疗上泪道阻塞的疗效。方法:选择在门诊治疗的上泪道阻塞89例116眼:泪点阻塞14眼、泪小管阻塞38眼、泪总管阻塞64眼。随机分成两组,对照组(A组)44例58眼:泪点阻塞6眼、泪小管阻塞20眼、泪总管阻塞32眼,观察组(B组)45例58眼:泪点阻塞8眼、泪小管阻塞18眼、泪总管阻塞32眼。材料选用硅胶泪小管,自编扩泪小管绳。在上下泪小管—鼻泪管置环形硅胶管,3～6mo拔管,若合并有鼻泪管阻塞,拨环形硅胶管后立即行鼻泪管逆植球头硅胶管术。B组与A组不同的是,将浸有0.25mg/mL丝裂霉素C的扩泪小管绳在上泪道留置3～5min,拨环形硅胶管后定期冲洗泪道。平均随访2a。结果:A组治愈率为72.4%,B组治愈率为93.1%,两组治愈率比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论:上泪道置环行硅胶管联合丝裂霉素C能提高手术的成功率,是治疗上泪道阻塞的较理想方法。     

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。