4.6 Article

Surgical Punctal Occlusion With a High Heat-Energy Releasing Cautery Device for Severe Dry Eye With Recurrent Punctal Plug Extrusion

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 151, Issue 3, Pages 483-487

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2010.08.045

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. JAPANESE MINISTRY OF HEALTH, LABOUR and Welfare, Tokyo, Japan [18070501]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To report the rate of recanalization and the efficacy of punctal occlusion surgery with a high heat-energy-releasing cautery device in patients with severe dry eye disease and recurrent punctal plug extrusion. DESIGN: Prospective, interventional case series. METHODS: Seventy puncta from 44 eyes of 28 dry eye patients underwent punctal occlusion with thermal cautery. All patients had a history of recurrent punctal plug extrusion. A high heat-energy releasing thermal cautery device (Optemp II V; Alcon Japan) was used for punctal occlusion surgery. Symptom scores, best-corrected visual acuity, fluorescein staining score, rose bengal staining score, tear film break-up time, and Schirmer test values were compared before and 3 months after the surgery. Rate of punctal recanalization also was examined. RESULTS: Three months after surgical cauterization, symptom score decreased from 3.9 +/- 0.23 to 0.56 +/- 0.84 (P < .0001). Logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution hest-corrected visual acuity improved from 0.11 +/- 0.30 to 0.013 +/- 0.22 (P = .003). Fluorescein staining score, rose bengal staining score, tear film break-up time, and the Schirmer test value also improved significantly after the surgery. Only 1 of 70 puncta recanalized after thermal cauterization (1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Punctal occlusion with the high heat-energy-releasing cautery device not only was associated with a low recanalization rate, but also with improvements in ocular surface wetness and better visual acuity. (Am J Ophthalmol 2011;151:483-487. 2011 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available