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。

Effects of two kinds of lacrimal passage probing in treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

AIM: To compare the therapeutic effect of the improved flushing probing of lacrimal passage and probing flush integrated for treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

METHODS: Totally 252 cases(273 eyes)of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction, admitted in our outpatient department from July 2008 to September 2012 were observed; One hundred and forty cases(156 eyes)were treated with improved flushing probing of lacrimal passage treatment, and 112 cases(117 eyes)were treated with probing flush integrated treatment; The therapeutic effects of the two methods were compared and followed-up time was 1 week to 1 month.

RESULTS:The improved flushing probing of lacrimal passage group had 152 eyes successful probing at once, 2 eyes failed during follow-up. The probing flush integrated group had 107 eyes successful probing at once, 8 eyes failed during follow-up. Difference between the two groups was statistically significant(P<0.05).

CONCLUSION:Compared the effect of treatments of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction,the improved flushing probing of lacrimal passage is significantly better than probing flush integrated.