PURPOSE: To report the functional and anatomical results of bicanalicular annular stent compared to bicanalicular nasal intubation in the management of traumatic lower canalicular laceration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective comparative, non-randomized interventional study. The study included consecutive patients suffering from traumatic lower canalicular laceration attended to ophthalmology department causality at Al Azhar University hospital Damietta branch, between December 2018 and August 2020. RESULTS: The study recruited eighty-five eyes of eighty-five patients admitted for treatment of traumatic lower canalicular laceration. In thirty-three patients, canalicular integrity was restored by bicanalicular annular stent (group 1) and in twenty five patients by bicanalicular lacrimal intubation (group 2). The affected patients were predominantly males (78.8% in the first group and 80% in the second group). Etiology of trauma was due to occupational hazards; 48.5% in the first group and 36% in the second group. Anatomical success in the first group was 93.9%, and 92% in the second group. Canalicular patency was achieved in 90.9% in the first group and in 80% in the second group. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference between bicanalicular annular stent and bicanalicular nasal intubation regarding both anatomical and functional success. Both techniques represent a successful alternative to monocanalicular stent.
PURPOSE: To report the functional and anatomical results of bicanalicular annular stent compared to bicanalicular nasal intubation in the management of traumatic lower canalicular laceration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective comparative, non-randomized interventional study. The study included consecutive patients suffering from traumatic lower canalicular laceration attended to ophthalmology department causality at Al Azhar University hospital Damietta branch, between December 2018 and August 2020. RESULTS: The study recruited eighty-five eyes of eighty-five patients admitted for treatment of traumatic lower canalicular laceration. In thirty-three patients, canalicular integrity was restored by bicanalicular annular stent (group 1) and in twenty five patients by bicanalicular lacrimal intubation (group 2). The affected patients were predominantly males (78.8% in the first group and 80% in the second group). Etiology of trauma was due to occupational hazards; 48.5% in the first group and 36% in the second group. Anatomical success in the first group was 93.9%, and 92% in the second group. Canalicular patency was achieved in 90.9% in the first group and in 80% in the second group. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference between bicanalicular annular stent and bicanalicular nasal intubation regarding both anatomical and functional success. Both techniques represent a successful alternative to monocanalicular stent.