Comparison of the Efficacies of 0.94 mm and Double Silicone Tubes for Treatment of Canalicular Obstruction

PURPOSE To compare the clinical effects of the single wide-diameter bicanalicular silicone tube and the double bicanalicular silicone tube in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) with canalicular trephinization for canalicular obstruction. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the records of 121 patients with monocanalicular or common canalicular obstruction who had undergone endonasal DCR with random bicanalicular insertion of either double silicone tubes (insertion of two tubes into each canaliculus) or a single wide-diameter (0.94 mm) silicone tube. The tubes were removed at around 3 months after surgery. RESULTS This study included 79 eyes of 61 patients in the double-tube intubation group and 68 eyes of 60 patients in the single wide-diameter tube intubation group. Anatomical success, evaluated by syringing, was achieved in 72 of the 79 eyes (91.1%) in the double-tube intubation group and 60 of the 68 eyes (88.2%) in the single wide-diameter tube intubation group. Functional success was achieved in 65 of the 79 eyes (82.3%) in the double-tube intubation group and 61 of the 68 (89.7%) eyes in the single wide-diameter tube intubation group. There were no significant differences in the success rates of surgery between the two groups. One patient in the double-tube intubation group underwent conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy (CDCR) and two in the wide-diameter tube intubation group underwent CDCR or reintubation to treat recurrence. CONCLUSIONS Intubation using a single wide-diameter tube during endonasal DCR is as effective as double-tube intubation for the treatment of canalicular obstruction, with a lower rate of complications such as inflammation or patient discomfort.