Canalicular laceration (cheese wiring) with a silicone tube after endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: when to remove the tube?

oc000124 10.3205/oc000124 urn:nbn:de:0183-oc0001245 Case Report Canalicular laceration (cheese wiring) with a silicone tube after endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: when to remove the tube? Karaca Karaca Umut U MD

Suleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, Isparta, Turkey, +90 5325809649Isparta Suleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, Isparta, TurkeyGulhane Military Medical Academy, Department of Ophthalmology, Ankara, Turkey

drumutkaraca@gmail.com author Genc Genc Hakan H

Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Department of ENT, Ankara, Turkey

author Usta Usta Gulsah G

Isparta Suleyman Demirel University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, Isparta, Turkey Kırıkkale University, Department of Ophthalmology, Kırıkkale, Turkey

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 dacryocystorhinostomy silicone tube canalicular laceration removal time 2019103020191111 engl This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). 2193-1496 9 GMS Ophthalmology Cases GMS Ophthalmol Cases 35 20191111Correction Ref 16 Objective: To discuss the removal time of a nasolacrimal silicone tube stent by reporting three cases with canalicular laceration due to prolonged indwelling of the stent. Methods: This study involved three cases of nasolacrimal duct obstruction treated by endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with silicone tube insertion. Results: The mean indwelling time of the silicone tube was 9.3 months and all of the patients had lower canalicular laceration near the common canaliculus. One patient presented with a complaint of canthal pain, blurred vision, and epiphora while the other two patients reported no complaint. The nasal endoscopic examination revealed a narrow fibrotic ostium below the medial concha. The silicone tubes were removed.Conclusions: To increase the success rate of the operation, the removal time for nasolacrimal silicone tubes after dacryocystorhinostomy is also important. Our findings indicate that physicians should be aware of the potential problems related to prolonged intubation. IntroductionSymptomatic acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction is the main etiological factor of epiphora in elderly adults. External dacryocystorhinostomy (Ex-DCR) is the gold standard treatment method for distal nasolacrimal system obstructions and endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy is also commonly performed , , . After the introduction of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (En-DCR), the procedure has become increasingly popular among ophthalmologists to treat nasolacrimal duct obstruction .En-DCR has many benefits, such as shorter operation and hospitalization time and lack of facial scars. However, it has the foremost disadvantage of the lower success rate compared to Ex-DCR. Surgeons have developed different techniques and materials to enhance the success rate of En-DCR , .Despite controversies in relation to stenting after operation, silicone stents are widely applied to prevent re-obstruction of the reformed rhinostomy site and have a success rate of 75–91% , , . Although there are many studies indicating the removal of stents from one week up to six months, the appropriate removal time period has not yet been standardized , .Here, we report three cases of nasolacrimal duct obstruction that have been treated by endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with silicone tube insertion. The mean indwelling time of the silicone tube was 9.3 months, and all the patients presented with upper and lower canalicular laceration near the common canaliculus. To the best of our knowledge, this type of complication in silicone tubes has not been reported in the literature yet. MethodsThis is an observational study of three cases with nasolacrimal duct obstruction that have been treated by endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with silicone tube insertion. Case 1 A 69-year-old female presented with epiphora in her left eye that had started two years before. She had been treated with En-DCR and silicone tube intubation eight months before. Upon initial visit to our clinic, detailed ophthalmic examination and nasal endoscopy revealed an open lacrimal passage with a narrow fibrotic nasolacrimal window and proper placement of the nasolacrimal tube. A lower canalicular laceration of approximately 0.5–0.6 cm had occurred due to the silicone tube (Figure 1 </PlainText></TextGroup><ImgLink imgNo="1" imgType="figure"/>). The tube was removed by nasal endoscopy and identified as a standard-type nasolacrimal intubation tube with a 0.8 mm (20 G) diameter. On the follow-up examination one week after tube removal, the patient reported no new symptoms. </Pgraph><SubHeadline>Case 2</SubHeadline><Pgraph>A 45-year-old woman was treated with En-DCR and silicone tube intubation due to her complaint of epiphora and blurred vision. The silicone tube used for the operation was a 0.90 mm x 4.5 cm (20 G diameter) angled DCR set (M04.4000, Meran Medikal, Istanbul, Turkey). She did not attend the follow-up session at the third postoperative month. At the following examination at the ninth month, a lower canalicular laceration was detected near the common canaliculus. Nasal endoscopy revealed fibrotic nasolacrimal window and shift of the silicone tube to the posterior nasal cavity. The silicone tube was removed during the endoscopic examination. </Pgraph><SubHeadline>Case 3</SubHeadline><Pgraph>A 56-year-old female presented with medial canthal pain, epiphora, and blurred vision 11 months after En-DCR with silicone tube intubation. A lower canalicular laceration was detected due to the silicone tube (20 G) and there were intranasal fibrotic mucosal synechiae and only a small ostium in the medial conchae region on nasal endoscopic examination (Figure 2 <ImgLink imgNo="2" imgType="figure"/>). The silicone tube was removed and the pain regressed during the follow-up, but epiphora persisted. Nasolacrimal lavage from the upper punctum revealed insufficient drainage during dacryocystorhinostomy.</Pgraph><Pgraph><LineBreak></LineBreak><LineBreak></LineBreak>All three cases had undergone dacryocystorhinostomy combined with bicanalicular intubation to improve the postoperative success rate. The location of the stent was appropriate and the stent was well tolerated by the patients without any allergic complication. Although the nasal ostium was open during the early postoperative period, osteal stricture was seen after seconder fibrotic healing of nasal mucosa (Figure 2B <ImgLink imgNo="2" imgType="figure"/>). Displacement of the tube narrowing the ostium and prolonged intubation may have been the cause of secondary stent tension and cheese wiring in all three cases.</Pgraph></TextBlock> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Discussion"> <MainHeadline>Discussion</MainHeadline><Pgraph>In recent years, En-DCR has become the most preferred method for the treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction due to the shorter operation and hospitalization time and fewer complications of hemorrhage and edema. In contrast, adhesions and re-obstructions are the most frequent etiologies for operative failure <TextLink reference="12"></TextLink>. Several studies encouraged to use intraoperative silicone stenting between the nasal cavity and canaliculus to prevent adhesions and stenosis of the nasal ostium <TextLink reference="5"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Silicone is an inorganic surgical material and may trigger intranasal and nasolacrimal granulation tissue leading to the development of adhesions and stenosis. Postoperative infections, displacement, and canalicular damage are other possible complications <TextLink reference="13"></TextLink>. Prolonged silicone tube intubation has been reported to induce inflammation, infection, and fibrosis <TextLink reference="14"></TextLink>. Okuyucu et al. reported three cases of granulation tissues, one case of intranasal synechia and one case of conjunctivitis among 30 patients (all stents were removed at the third month) <TextLink reference="15"></TextLink>. <TextGroup><PlainText>Imamoglu</PlainText></TextGroup> et al. detected an inflammatory mass at the lower canaliculus at the second month after surgery. The mass regressed after medical therapy but only after the removal of the silicone tube <TextLink reference="16"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>Canalicular laceration is one of the main complications of silicone stent intubation and leads to the development of epiphora. Smit and Mourits reported a case series including 13 patients with an untreated monocanalicular laceration. No patients complained of epiphora under basal tear conditions and only three were found to have epiphora under reflex tear conditions <TextLink reference="17"></TextLink>. In our study, only one case complained of epiphora due to intranasal synechia and narrow ostium after the removal of the tube. Therefore, we decided to monitor the cases rather than performing canalicular repair.</Pgraph><Pgraph>The incidence of cheese wiring has been reported to be 2.6% for Ex-DCR and 1.5% for En-DCR <TextLink reference="18"></TextLink>. Cheese wiring results from the tube being placed under tension and long duration intubation time. Anuar and Gendeh mentioned that wiping the eye when the eyelids are closed may be a cause of cheese wiring. Since the stent loop is immobilized, external wiping of the eyelid pulls the punctum against the fixed stents <TextLink reference="19"></TextLink>. Charalampidou et al. recommended early monitoring of the tube within a week of intubation and anticipation of cheese wiring if the tube was too tight <TextLink reference="20"></TextLink>.</Pgraph><Pgraph>There is still a debate on the extubation time of silicone tubes in the literature. Nuhoglu et al. and Kong et al. suggested removing the tubes before the second month, while Rebeiz et al. stated that tubes should be left in for up to six months <TextLink reference="21"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="22"></TextLink>, <TextLink reference="23"></TextLink>. In this paper, we report three cases of nasolacrimal duct obstruction that have been treated by endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with silicone tube insertion. The mean indwelling time of silicone tube was 9.3 months, and all the patients had an upper and lower canalicular laceration near the common canaliculus. Despite the case report of Mimura et al. that suggested both the lacrimal system and the silicone tube were tolerant to prolonged intubation, we detected canalicular laceration as a complication of silicone tube stenting in our cases <TextLink reference="24"></TextLink>.</Pgraph></TextBlock> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Conclusions"> <MainHeadline>Conclusions</MainHeadline><Pgraph>In our clinical approach, the removal time for silicone stent is two to four months after operation. Prolonged intubation causes increased nasal inflammation and fibrosis as well as canalicular laceration. Based on the findings of the current study, we recommend removing the silicone tube no longer than four months after the operation.</Pgraph></TextBlock> <TextBlock linked="yes" name="Notes"> <MainHeadline>Notes</MainHeadline><SubHeadline>Competing interests</SubHeadline><Pgraph>The authors declare that they have no competing interests.</Pgraph><SubHeadline>Ethical statement</SubHeadline><Pgraph>All procedures involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the local ethical committee of Suleyman Demirel University and the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.</Pgraph></TextBlock> <References linked="yes"> <Reference refNo="1"> <RefAuthor>Leong SC</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Macewen CJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>White PS</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>A systematic review of outcomes after dacryocystorhinostomy in adults</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Rhinol Allergy</RefJournal> <RefPage>81-90</RefPage> <RefTotal>Leong SC, Macewen CJ, White PS. A systematic review of outcomes after dacryocystorhinostomy in adults. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2010 Jan-Feb;24(1):81-90. DOI: 10.2500/ajra.2010.24.3393</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/ajra.2010.24.3393</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="2"> <RefAuthor>Lee DW</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Chai CH</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Loon SC</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Primary external dacryocystorhinostomy versus primary endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a review</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>Clin Experiment Ophthalmol</RefJournal> <RefPage>418-26</RefPage> <RefTotal>Lee DW, Chai CH, Loon SC. Primary external dacryocystorhinostomy versus primary endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a review. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2010 May;38(4):418-26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02254.x</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02254.x</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="3"> <RefAuthor>Anijeet D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Dolan L</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Macewen CJ</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Endonasal versus external dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal duct obstruction</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Cochrane Database Syst Rev</RefJournal> <RefPage>CD007097</RefPage> <RefTotal>Anijeet D, Dolan L, Macewen CJ. Endonasal versus external dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jan;(1):CD007097. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007097.pub2</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007097.pub2</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="4"> <RefAuthor>McDonogh M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Meiring JH</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Endoscopic transnasal dacryocystorhinostomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1989</RefYear> <RefJournal>J Laryngol Otol</RefJournal> <RefPage>585-7</RefPage> <RefTotal>McDonogh M, Meiring JH. Endoscopic transnasal dacryocystorhinostomy. J Laryngol Otol. 1989 Jun;103(6):585-7. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007097.pub2</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007097.pub2</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="5"> <RefAuthor>Metson R</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Woog JJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Puliafito CA</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Endoscopic laser dacryocystorhinostomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1994</RefYear> <RefJournal>Laryngoscope</RefJournal> <RefPage>269-74</RefPage> <RefTotal>Metson R, Woog JJ, Puliafito CA. Endoscopic laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope. 1994 Mar;104(3 Pt 1):269-74. DOI: 10.1288/00005537-199403000-00005</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1288/00005537-199403000-00005</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="6"> <RefAuthor>Mäntynen J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Yoshitsugu M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Rautiainen M</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Results of dacryocystorhinostomy in 96 patients</RefTitle> <RefYear>1997</RefYear> <RefJournal>Acta Otolaryngol Suppl</RefJournal> <RefPage>187-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Mäntynen J, Yoshitsugu M, Rautiainen M. Results of dacryocystorhinostomy in 96 patients. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1997;529:187-9. DOI: 10.3109/00016489709124118</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016489709124118</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="7"> <RefAuthor>Allen K</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Berlin AJ</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Dacryocystorhinostomy failure: association with nasolacrimal silicone intubation</RefTitle> <RefYear>1989</RefYear> <RefJournal>Ophthalmic Surg</RefJournal> <RefPage>486-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Allen K, Berlin AJ. Dacryocystorhinostomy failure: association with nasolacrimal silicone intubation. Ophthalmic Surg. 1989 Jul;20(7):486-9.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="8"> <RefAuthor>Hartikainen J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Antila J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Varpula M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Puukka P</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Seppä H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Grénman R</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Prospective randomized comparison of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1998</RefYear> <RefJournal>Laryngoscope</RefJournal> <RefPage>1861-6</RefPage> <RefTotal>Hartikainen J, Antila J, Varpula M, Puukka P, Seppä H, Grénman R. Prospective randomized comparison of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope. 1998 Dec;108(12):1861-6. DOI: 10.1097/00005537-199812000-00018</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005537-199812000-00018</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="9"> <RefAuthor>Pittore B</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tan N</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Salis G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Brennan PA</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Puxeddu R</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Endoscopic transnasal dacryocystorhinostomy without stenting: results in 64 consecutive procedures</RefTitle> <RefYear>2010</RefYear> <RefJournal>Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital</RefJournal> <RefPage>294-8</RefPage> <RefTotal>Pittore B, Tan N, Salis G, Brennan PA, Puxeddu R. Endoscopic transnasal dacryocystorhinostomy without stenting: results in 64 consecutive procedures. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2010 Dec;30(6):294-8.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="10"> <RefAuthor>Demirci H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Elner VM</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Double silicone tube intubation for the management of partial lacrimal system obstruction</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>Ophthalmology</RefJournal> <RefPage>383-5</RefPage> <RefTotal>Demirci H, Elner VM. Double silicone tube intubation for the management of partial lacrimal system obstruction. Ophthalmology. 2008 Feb;115(2):383-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.078</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.078</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="11"> <RefAuthor>Liu D</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Bosley TM</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Silicone nasolacrimal intubation with mitomycin-C: a prospective, randomized, double-masked study</RefTitle> <RefYear>2003</RefYear> <RefJournal>Ophthalmology</RefJournal> <RefPage>306-10</RefPage> <RefTotal>Liu D, Bosley TM. Silicone nasolacrimal intubation with mitomycin-C: a prospective, randomized, double-masked study. Ophthalmology. 2003 Feb;110(2):306-10. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01751-7</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01751-7</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="12"> <RefAuthor>Sprekelsen MB</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Barberán MT</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: surgical technique and results</RefTitle> <RefYear>1996</RefYear> <RefJournal>Laryngoscope</RefJournal> <RefPage>187-9</RefPage> <RefTotal>Sprekelsen MB, Barberán MT. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: surgical technique and results. Laryngoscope. 1996 Feb;106(2 Pt 1):187-9. DOI: 10.1097/00005537-199602000-00015</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005537-199602000-00015</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="13"> <RefAuthor>Smirnov G</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Tuomilehto H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Teräsvirta M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Nuutinen J</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Seppä J</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Silicone tubing is not necessary after primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: a prospective randomized study</RefTitle> <RefYear>2008</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Rhinol</RefJournal> <RefPage>214-7</RefPage> <RefTotal>Smirnov G, Tuomilehto H, Teräsvirta M, Nuutinen J, Seppä J. Silicone tubing is not necessary after primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: a prospective randomized study. Am J Rhinol. 2008 Mar-Apr;22(2):214-7. DOI: 10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3132</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3132</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="14"> <RefAuthor>Kim SE</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lee SJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Lee SY</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Yoon JS</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Clinical significance of microbial growth on the surfaces of silicone tubes removed from dacryocystorhinostomy patients</RefTitle> <RefYear>2012</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Ophthalmol</RefJournal> <RefPage>253-257</RefPage> <RefTotal>Kim SE, Lee SJ, Lee SY, Yoon JS. Clinical significance of microbial growth on the surfaces of silicone tubes removed from dacryocystorhinostomy patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012 Feb;153(2):253-257.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.06.030</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2011.06.030</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="16"> <RefAuthor>Imamoglu HI</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Akyol N</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Saglam M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Erdöl H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kaya C</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Silikon Tüpe Bagli Olarak Gelisen: Enflamatuar Kitlenin Tibbi Tedavisi</RefTitle> <RefYear>1995</RefYear> <RefJournal>Turk Klin Oftalmol Derg</RefJournal> <RefPage>70-1</RefPage> <RefTotal>Imamoglu HI, Akyol N, Saglam M, Erdöl H,Kaya C. Silikon Tüpe Bagli Olarak Gelisen: Enflamatuar Kitlenin Tibbi Tedavisi. Turk Klin Oftalmol Derg. 1995;4(1):70-1.</RefTotal> </Reference> <Reference refNo="17"> <RefAuthor>Smit TJ</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Mourits MP</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Monocanalicular lesions: to reconstruct or not</RefTitle> <RefYear>1999</RefYear> <RefJournal>Ophthalmology</RefJournal> <RefPage>1310-2</RefPage> <RefTotal>Smit TJ, Mourits MP. Monocanalicular lesions: to reconstruct or not. Ophthalmology. 1999 Jul;106(7):1310-2. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(99)00715-0</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(99)00715-0</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="18"> <RefAuthor>Dolman PJ</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy with nonlaser endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2003</RefYear> <RefJournal>Ophthalmology</RefJournal> <RefPage>78-84</RefPage> <RefTotal>Dolman PJ. Comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy with nonlaser endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology. 2003 Jan;110(1):78-84. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01452-5</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01452-5</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="19"> <RefAuthor>Anuar BK</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Gendeh BS</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Tube extrusion and cheese wiring five years post darcyocystorhinostomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>2011</RefYear> <RefJournal>Phillip J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg</RefJournal> <RefPage>25-27</RefPage> <RefTotal>Anuar BK, Gendeh BS. Tube extrusion and cheese wiring five years post darcyocystorhinostomy. Phillip J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011 Jul-Dec;26 (2):25-27. DOI: 10.32412/pjohns.v26i2.575</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v26i2.575</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="20"> <RefAuthor>Charalampidou S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Fulcher T</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Does the timing of silicone tube removal following external dacryocystorhinostomy affect patients' symptoms? Orbit</RefTitle> <RefYear>2009</RefYear> <RefTotal>Charalampidou S, Fulcher T. Does the timing of silicone tube removal following external dacryocystorhinostomy affect patients' symptoms? Orbit. 2009;28(2-3):115-9. DOI: 10.1080/01676830802674342</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01676830802674342</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="21"> <RefAuthor>Nuhoğlu F SK</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ozdemir FE</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Outcome of External Dacryocystorhinostomy with Bicanalicular Silicone Tube Stenting</RefTitle> <RefYear>2014</RefYear> <RefJournal>JAREM</RefJournal> <RefPage>88-92</RefPage> <RefTotal>Nuhoğlu F SK, Ozdemir FE. Outcome of External Dacryocystorhinostomy with Bicanalicular Silicone Tube Stenting. JAREM. 2014;4:88-92. DOI: 10.5152/jarem.2014.506</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/jarem.2014.506</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="22"> <RefAuthor>Kong YT</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kim TI</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Kong BW</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>A report of 131 cases of endoscopic laser lacrimal surgery</RefTitle> <RefYear>1994</RefYear> <RefJournal>Ophthalmology</RefJournal> <RefPage>1793-800</RefPage> <RefTotal>Kong YT, Kim TI, Kong BW. A report of 131 cases of endoscopic laser lacrimal surgery. Ophthalmology. 1994 Nov;101(11):1793-800. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(94)31100-6 </RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(94)31100-6</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="23"> <RefAuthor>Rebeiz EE</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Shapshay SM</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Bowlds JH</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Pankratov MM</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Anatomic guidelines for dacryocystorhinostomy</RefTitle> <RefYear>1992</RefYear> <RefJournal>Laryngoscope</RefJournal> <RefPage>1181-4</RefPage> <RefTotal>Rebeiz EE, Shapshay SM, Bowlds JH, Pankratov MM. Anatomic guidelines for dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope. 1992 Oct;102(10):1181-4. DOI: 10.1288/00005537-199210000-00015</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1288/00005537-199210000-00015</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="24"> <RefAuthor>Mimura M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Oku H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ueki M</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Sato B</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Ikeda T</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>A case of neglected silicone tube in lacrimal duct for 20 years</RefTitle> <RefYear>2018</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep</RefJournal> <RefPage>41-44</RefPage> <RefTotal>Mimura M, Oku H, Ueki M, Sato B, Ikeda T. A case of neglected silicone tube in lacrimal duct for 20 years. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep. 2018 Sep;11:41-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajoc.2018.05.005</RefTotal> <RefLink>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoc.2018.05.005</RefLink> </Reference> <Reference refNo="15"> <RefAuthor>Okuyucu S</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Gorur H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Oksuz H</RefAuthor> <RefAuthor>Akoglu E</RefAuthor> <RefTitle>Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with silicone, polypropylene, and T-tube stents; randomized controlled trial of efficacy and safety</RefTitle> <RefYear>2015</RefYear> <RefJournal>Am J Rhinol Allergy</RefJournal> <RefPage>63-8</RefPage> <RefTotal>Okuyucu S, Gorur H, Oksuz H, Akoglu E. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with silicone, polypropylene, and T-tube stents; randomized controlled trial of efficacy and safety. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2015 Jan-Feb;29(1):63-8. DOI: 10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4119</RefTotal> <RefLink>https://doi.org/10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4119</RefLink> </Reference> </References> <Media> <Tables> <NoOfTables>0</NoOfTables> </Tables> <Figures> <Figure format="png" height="533" width="439"> <MediaNo>1</MediaNo> <MediaID>1</MediaID> <Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Figure 1: Canalicular laceration (arrow) after silicone tube extraction</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption> </Figure> <Figure format="png" height="886" width="453"> <MediaNo>2</MediaNo> <MediaID>2</MediaID> <Caption><Pgraph><Mark1>Figure 2: A) Intranasal silicone tube and fibrotic tissue (arrow). B) Intranasal synechia and narrow ostium (arrow).</Mark1></Pgraph></Caption> </Figure> <NoOfPictures>2</NoOfPictures> </Figures> <InlineFigures> <NoOfPictures>0</NoOfPictures> </InlineFigures> <Attachments> <NoOfAttachments>0</NoOfAttachments> </Attachments> </Media> </OrigData> </GmsArticle>