4.6 Article

Silicone nasolacrimal intubation with mitomycin-C - A prospective, randomized, double-masked study

期刊

OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 110, 期 2, 页码 306-310

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01751-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine if mitomycin-C (MMC) application during silicone intubation (SI) can effectively substitute for dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) or Jones tube insertion. Design: A prospective, randomized, double-masked study. Participants: Twenty-four patients (7 males, 17 females; aged 2-69 years) with 27 eyes (three bilateral cases) with an obstructed lacrimal system who were candidates for DCR or Jones tube. Methods: All study patients underwent SI with application in a randomized, double-masked fashion of MMC or placebo, with the former receiving 0.2 mg/ml MMC for 2 minutes before SI. Main Outcome Measures: Clinical assessment of tearing and discharge; Schirmer I and II tests at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; and the need for eventual DCR or Jones tube insertion. Results: Follow-up ranged from 13 to 23 months (mean, 18 months; median, 17 months). Seven of the 12 eyes in the MMC group and 8 of the 15 eyes in the placebo group had a successful outcome and remained symptom free. The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.79). Dacryocystorhinostomy or Jones tube was performed in five eyes in the MMC group and in seven eyes in the placebo group 3 to 18 months later; all had successful outcome and no complications. Untoward effects of MMC application included a slit canaliculus and a transient conjunctival injection. A successful outcome using this combined technique does not appear to correlate with age, gender, laterality, and intraoperative bleeding observed at the punctum or for the duration of symptoms. Conclusions: Mitomycin-C application during SI did not benefit outcome. Complications from such application were mild and infrequent. (C) 2003 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据