CONCLUSION: Prolene is cheap, effective, and readily available in almost all operating theaters. It might be used successfully in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and is promising as an alternative to silicone stent intubations, especially in settings with limited resources. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and results of stenting with polypropylene (Prolene; Ethicon, Inc.) suture material instead of silicone tube in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy operations were performed in 36 patients (11 men and 25 women; mean age 34.7 + or - 9.5 years, range 16-60 years) between 2007 and 2008. After creating an aperture in the medial wall of the lacrimal sac, 2/0 Prolene was inserted through the canaliculi into the sac. The Prolene was left in the lacrimal sac for 3 months. The patients were followed up for between 6 and 18 months (mean 8.1 + or - 3.6 months). The improvement in the complaint of epiphora was grouped as very good, good, or no change. RESULTS: The improvement in 34 eyes (81%) was reported as very good, whereas improvement was noted as good in 5 eyes (11.9%), and there was no change in 3 eyes (7.1%). We observed granulation tissue formation around the Prolene in two patients.
CONCLUSION:Prolene is cheap, effective, and readily available in almost all operating theaters. It might be used successfully in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and is promising as an alternative to silicone stent intubations, especially in settings with limited resources. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and results of stenting with polypropylene (Prolene; Ethicon, Inc.) suture material instead of silicone tube in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy operations were performed in 36 patients (11 men and 25 women; mean age 34.7 + or - 9.5 years, range 16-60 years) between 2007 and 2008. After creating an aperture in the medial wall of the lacrimal sac, 2/0 Prolene was inserted through the canaliculi into the sac. The Prolene was left in the lacrimal sac for 3 months. The patients were followed up for between 6 and 18 months (mean 8.1 + or - 3.6 months). The improvement in the complaint of epiphora was grouped as very good, good, or no change. RESULTS: The improvement in 34 eyes (81%) was reported as very good, whereas improvement was noted as good in 5 eyes (11.9%), and there was no change in 3 eyes (7.1%). We observed granulation tissue formation around the Prolene in two patients.