Comparing pericanalicular sutures with direct canalicular wall sutures for canalicular laceration

Yen Chang Chu; Lih Ma; Shu Ya Wu; Yueh Ju Tsai

doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e31822113df

Comparing pericanalicular sutures with direct canalicular wall sutures for canalicular laceration

Yen Chang Chu, Lih Ma, Shu Ya Wu, Yueh Ju Tsai^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

School of Medicine

Chang Gung University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal Article › peer-review

10 Scopus citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether a statistically significant difference exists between direct canalicular wall sutures (DCs) and pericanalicular sutures (PCs) in the repair of traumatic canalicular lacerations. METHODS: The medical records of 63 patients who underwent primary repairs for traumatic canalicular lacerations were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to the suturing techniques used: the DC group (n = 41) and the PC group (n = 22). Anatomic results were compared between these 2 groups. A successful result was determined by attempted irrigation and probing of the injured canaliculus at the last follow-up visit. RESULTS: There were 6 failed procedures among the patients who underwent pericanalicular repair and 1 failed procedure among the patients who underwent direct canalicular wall repair (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the higher success rates in patients treated with direct canalicular repair compared with pericanalicular repair.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	422-425
Number of pages	4
Journal	Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume	27
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0b013e31822113df
State	Published - 11 2011

Access to Document

10.1097/IOP.0b013e31822113df

Cite this

@article{45388d3352684040b3fa776b91fe3c26,

title = "Comparing pericanalicular sutures with direct canalicular wall sutures for canalicular laceration",

abstract = "PURPOSE: To determine whether a statistically significant difference exists between direct canalicular wall sutures (DCs) and pericanalicular sutures (PCs) in the repair of traumatic canalicular lacerations. METHODS: The medical records of 63 patients who underwent primary repairs for traumatic canalicular lacerations were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to the suturing techniques used: the DC group (n = 41) and the PC group (n = 22). Anatomic results were compared between these 2 groups. A successful result was determined by attempted irrigation and probing of the injured canaliculus at the last follow-up visit. RESULTS: There were 6 failed procedures among the patients who underwent pericanalicular repair and 1 failed procedure among the patients who underwent direct canalicular wall repair (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the higher success rates in patients treated with direct canalicular repair compared with pericanalicular repair.",

author = "Chu, {Yen Chang} and Lih Ma and Wu, {Shu Ya} and Tsai, {Yueh Ju}",

year = "2011",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1097/IOP.0b013e31822113df",

language = "英语",

volume = "27",

pages = "422--425",

journal = "Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",

issn = "0740-9303",

publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing pericanalicular sutures with direct canalicular wall sutures for canalicular laceration

AU - Chu, Yen Chang

AU - Ma, Lih

AU - Wu, Shu Ya

AU - Tsai, Yueh Ju

PY - 2011/11

Y1 - 2011/11

N2 - PURPOSE: To determine whether a statistically significant difference exists between direct canalicular wall sutures (DCs) and pericanalicular sutures (PCs) in the repair of traumatic canalicular lacerations. METHODS: The medical records of 63 patients who underwent primary repairs for traumatic canalicular lacerations were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to the suturing techniques used: the DC group (n = 41) and the PC group (n = 22). Anatomic results were compared between these 2 groups. A successful result was determined by attempted irrigation and probing of the injured canaliculus at the last follow-up visit. RESULTS: There were 6 failed procedures among the patients who underwent pericanalicular repair and 1 failed procedure among the patients who underwent direct canalicular wall repair (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the higher success rates in patients treated with direct canalicular repair compared with pericanalicular repair.

AB - PURPOSE: To determine whether a statistically significant difference exists between direct canalicular wall sutures (DCs) and pericanalicular sutures (PCs) in the repair of traumatic canalicular lacerations. METHODS: The medical records of 63 patients who underwent primary repairs for traumatic canalicular lacerations were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to the suturing techniques used: the DC group (n = 41) and the PC group (n = 22). Anatomic results were compared between these 2 groups. A successful result was determined by attempted irrigation and probing of the injured canaliculus at the last follow-up visit. RESULTS: There were 6 failed procedures among the patients who underwent pericanalicular repair and 1 failed procedure among the patients who underwent direct canalicular wall repair (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the higher success rates in patients treated with direct canalicular repair compared with pericanalicular repair.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=81355147689&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/IOP.0b013e31822113df

DO - 10.1097/IOP.0b013e31822113df

M3 - 文章

C2 - 21697757

AN - SCOPUS:81355147689

SN - 0740-9303

VL - 27

SP - 422

EP - 425

JO - Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

IS - 6

ER -

Comparing pericanalicular sutures with direct canalicular wall sutures for canalicular laceration

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this