单双路泪道留置不同义管治疗外伤性下泪小管断裂的临床比较  

Clinical comparison of bicanalicular silicone intubation and monocanalicular intubation with epidural catheter in lower canalicular laceration

作　　者：邹捷敏[1] 孙建华[1] 周治国[1] 

机构地区：[1]湖南省娄底市中心医院眼科,417000

出　　处：《临床眼科杂志》2011年第4期352-354,共3页Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology

摘　　要：目的比较单路泪道留置硬膜外麻醉导管和双路泪道留置硅胶管治疗外伤性泪小管断裂的效果。方法回顾性病例研究。2007年1月至2009年12月期间,娄底市中心医院收治53例(53只眼)外伤性下泪小管断裂患者,其中24例采用单路泪道留置硬膜外麻醉导管(A组),29例采用双路泪道留置硅胶管(B组),主要评价术后6个月时两组病例泪道冲洗通畅情况。结果术后6个月时泪道冲洗不通畅者:A组8例(33.3%),B组2例(6.9%),差异具有显著统计学意义(P=0.031)。结论采用双路泪道留置硅胶管行外伤性下泪小管断裂吻合术,术后外观及疗效更为满意,更易于被患者接受,值得临床推广。Objective To assess the results and complications of the two different surgical treatments for reconstruction of lacrimal system.Methods Retrospective case study.53 cases（53 eyes） from Loudi Central Hospital with lower cananlicular laceration as a result of trauma were involved in the study from 2007 to 2009.To reanastomosis of the severed canaliculi,24 cases received monocanalicular intubation with epidural catheter（Group A）,while the other 29 cases received bicanalicular silicone intubation（Group B）.We evaluated the function of the lacrimal drainage system by irrigation after 6 months postoperatively.Results Restenosis of the lacrimal drainage system occurred in 8 and 2 cases in Group A and Group B separately.The success rate of Group B was significantly higher than Group A（P=0.031）.Conclusion The surgical technique of bicanalicular silicone intubation to repaire canalicular laceration is more effective and deserves clinical popularity.

关 键 词：泪小管断裂 插管法 泪道植入物 

分 类 号：R779.6[医药卫生—眼科]