Comparison of the application value between RS-type lacrimal duct drainage tube and single chamber silicone lacrimal duct drainage tube in the repair of lacrimal canalicular rupture

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes between RS-type lacrimal duct drainage tube and single chamber silicone lacrimal duct drainage tube in the repair of lacrimal canalicular rupture.

MethodsThirty-eight patients with lacrimal canalicular rupture were divided into the observation group and control group according to the types of lacrimal duct support.The lacrimal duct supports in the observation group and control group were RS-type lacrimal tube and single chamber silicone lacrimal drainage tube, respectively.The operation time, postoperative complications and clinical effect between two groups were compared.

ResultsThe operation time in observation group(45.17±5.80) min was significantly lower than that in control group(57.07±5.09) min (P < 0.01).One case with postoperative nosebleed and 1 case with lacrimal tear were identified in the observation group, and 1 case with eyelid valgus, 2 cases with catheterization and 3 cases with lacrimal tear were identified in the control group.There was statistical significance in the total incidence of postoperative complications between two groups (P < 0.05).After 3 months of extubation, the difference of the postoperative effect between two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05).

ConclusionsThe effect of RS-type lacrimal tube in the repair of lacrimal canaliculus injury is good, and the operation time and postoperative complications of which are shorter and less compared with the single chamber silicone lacrimal duct drainage tube.It is worthy of clinical application.