Journals / Acta Medica Alanya / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1

Comparison of Canalicular Laceration in Pediatric and Adult Patients: Occurrence and Treatment Outcomes

Pediatrik ve Erişkin Hastalarda Kanalikül Kesilerinin Karşılaştırılması: Görülme Sıklığı ve Tedavi Sonuçları

Çisil Erkan Pota(AKDENİZ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-2544-6618
Hatice Deniz İlhan(AKDENİZ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-5085-4763
Pages
14–20
Publication Date
2026-04-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We believe early intervention with a stent-assisted surgery would minimize the problems that may occur in both groups.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To evaluate the treatment outcomes of canalicular laceration in pediatric and adult patients, and investigate factors that affect the development of epiphora.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Data from 90 patients who underwent canalicular laceration repair between April 2014 and February 2022 were analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We believe early intervention with a stent-assisted surgery would minimize the problems that may occur in both groups.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:kanalikül kesisi · göz kapağı kesisi · Mini Monoka stent

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the treatment outcomes of canalicular laceration in pediatric and adult patients, and investigate factors that affect the development of epiphora. Methods: Data from 90 patients who underwent canalicular laceration repair between April 2014 and February 2022 were analyzed. We included twenty-seven children and sixty-three adult patients with a minimum 6-month follow-up. Results: The mean age was 7.48±4.5(1-18)years in the pediatric group and 39.81±12.4 (19-65 years). years in the adult group. The mean time between injury and surgery was 1.52±1.67 days in the pediatric group and 2.3±1.4 days in the adult group. The difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05) Mini-Monoka stent was inserted in 24 patients, a bicanalicular silicone tube in 2 patients, and no implant in one patient in the pediatric group. Mini-Monoka stent was inserted in 49 patients, a bicanalicular silicone tube in 9 patients, and no implant in 5 patients in the adult group. Only 1(%3,7) patient had postoperative epiphora in the pediatric group, 8 (%12,6) patients in the adult group. Complaints of epiphora were less frequent in the pediatric group (p:0.05). In both groups, lower canalicular laceration was more common. Outdoor injuries and the need for additional surgery were more frequent in the adult age group. Conclusion: Based on our study, we found that trauma due to a traffic accident, the presence of an additional injury of the periorbital area, and operation without stent insertion have a significant effect on increasing epiphora. We believe early intervention with a stent-assisted surgery would minimize the problems that may occur in both groups.

Özet

Amaç: Pediatrik ve erişkin hastalarda görülen kanalikül kesilerinin tedavi sonuçlarını değerlendirmek ve epifora (gözyaşı akıntısı) gelişimini etkileyen faktörleri araştırmak. Yöntem: Nisan 2014 ile Şubat 2022 tarihleri arasında kanaliküler laserasyon onarımı yapılan 90 hastanın verileri analiz edildi. Altı aydan uzun takip süresi olan 27 çocuk ve 63 erişkin hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Bulgular: Pediatrik grubun yaş ortalaması 7,48±4,5 (1–18 yaş), erişkin grubun yaş ortalaması ise 39,81±12,4 (19–65 yaş) idi. Yaralanma ile cerrahi müdahale arasındaki ortalama süre pediatrik grupta 1,52±1,67 gün, erişkin grupta ise 2,3±1,4 gündü. Bu fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildi (p>0,05). Pediatrik grupta 24 hastaya Mini-Monoka stent, 2 hastaya bikanaliküler silikon tüp yerleştirildi, 1 hastaya ise herhangi bir implant uygulanmadı. Erişkin grupta ise 49 hastaya Mini-Monoka stent, 9 hastaya bikanaliküler silikon tüp yerleştirildi, 5 hastaya ise implant uygulanmadı. Pediatrik grupta yalnızca 1(%3,7) hastada, erişkin grupta ise 8 (%12,6) hastada postoperatif epifora gelişti. Epifora şikayetleri pediatrik grupta daha az sıklıkla görüldü (p:0,05). Her iki grupta da alt kanaliküler laserasyon daha yaygındı. Dış ortam yaralanmaları ve ek cerrahi gereksinimi erişkin hastalarda daha sık gözlendi. Sonuç: Çalışmamızda trafik kazasına bağlı travmalar, periorbital bölgede ek yaralanmaların varlığı ve stent yerleştirilmeden yapılan operasyonların epifora gelişimini artırdığı saptandı. Her iki hasta grubunda da stent destekli cerrahi ile erken müdahalenin, oluşabilecek komplikasyonları en aza indireceğine inanıyoruz.

🔖

Cite This Article

Pota, Ç. E., Şerifoğlu, Ö. E. G., Yaprak, A. Ç., İlhan, H. D. (2026). Comparison of Canalicular Laceration in Pediatric and Adult Patients: Occurrence and Treatment Outcomes. Acta Medica Alanya, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.30565/medalanya.1733778

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. Kennedy RH, May J, Dailey J, Flanagan JC. Canalicular laceration. An 11-year epidemiologic and clinical study. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;6(1):46-53. PMID: 2268600.
  2. Herzum H, Holle P, Hintschich C. Lidverletzungen. Epidemiologische Aspekte [Eyelid injuries: epidemiological aspects]. Ophthalmologe. 2001;98(11):1079-82. German. doi: 10.1007/s003470170029.
  3. Canavan YM, Archer DB. Long-term review of injuries to the lacrimal drainage apparatus. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K (1962). 1979;99(1):201-4. PMID: 297377.
  4. Saunders DH, Shannon GM, Flanagan JC. The effectiveness of the pigtail probe method of repairing canalicular lacerations. Ophthalmic Surg. 1978;9(3):33-40. PMID: 400836.
  5. Naik MN, Kelapure A, Rath S, Honavar SG. Management of canalicular lacerations: epidemiological aspects and experience with Mini-Monoka monocanalicular stent. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(2):375-80. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.09.018.
  6. Reifler DM. Management of canalicular laceration. Surv Ophthalmol. 1991;36(2):113-32. doi: 10.1016/0039-6257(91)90125-y.
  7. Karadenız Ugurlu S, Altın Ekın M, Aytogan H. Assessment of tear meniscus by optical coherence tomography in patients with canalicular laceration repair. Int Ophthalmol. 2020;40(1):13-8. doi: 10.1007/s10792-019-01147-z.
  8. Rosser PM, Burt B, Osborne SF. Determination of the function of a repaired canaliculus after monocanalicular injury by placing a punctal plug in the non-involved punctum on the affected side. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2010;38:786-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02330.x.
  9. Al-Sulaiman S, Al-Faky YH, Chaudhry I, Alsuhaibani AH. Tear drainage in traumatic canalicular fistula. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;29:164-6. doi: 10.1097/IOP.0b013e3182873b1e.
  10. Alhammad F, Galindo-Ferreiro A, Khandekar R, Al-Sheikh O, Alzaher F, Schellini S. Management outcomes of canalicular laceration in children. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2020;34(2):101-6. doi: 10.4103/1319-4534.305041.
  11. Di Maria A, Tredici C, Cozzupoli GM, Vinciguerra P, Confalonieri F. Effects of prostaglandin analogues on epiphora persistence after EN-DCR: A hypothesis-generating study. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2023;33(1):182-7. doi: 10.1177/11206721221106138.
  12. Munk PL, Lin DT, Morris DC. Epiphora: treatment by means of dacryocystoplasty with balloon dilation of the nasolacrimal drainage apparatus. Radiology. 1990;177(3):687-90. doi: 10.1148/radiology.177.3.2243969.
  13. Ducasse A, Arndt C, Brugniart C, Larre I. Lacrimal traumatology. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2016;39:213–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jfo.2015.10.002.
  14. Wulc AE, Arterberry JF. The pathogenesis of canalicular laceration. Ophthalmology. 1991;98(8):1243-9. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(91)32148-1.
  15. Jordan DR, Ziai S, Gilberg SM, Mawn LA. Pathogenesis of canalicular lacerations. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;24(5):394-8. doi: 10.1097/IOP.0b013e318183267a.
  16. Agarwal R, Patidar N, Mohan A, Singh R, Sen P. Pattern of Presentation and Surgical Outcomes of Canalicular Laceration Repair in a Pediatric Population. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2021;58(1):42-7. doi: 10.3928/01913913-20201007-02.
  17. Dortzbach RK, Angrist RA: Silicone intubation for lacerated lacrimal canaliculi. Ophthalmic surgery. 1985;16(10):639-42.
  18. Hawes MJ, Segrest DR. Effectiveness of bicanalicular silicone intubation in the repair of canalicular lacerations. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;1(3):185-90. doi: 10.1097/00002341-198501030-00005.
  19. Murchison AP, Bilyk JR. Canalicular laceration repair: An analysis of variables affecting success. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;30:410–4. doi: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000000133.
  20. Chowdhury HR, Rose GE, Ezra DG. Long-term outcomes of monocanalicular repair of canalicular lacerations Ophthalmology. 2014;121:16656. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.02.027.
  21. Tavakoli M, Karimi S, Behdad B, Dizani S, Salour H. Traumatic Canalicular Laceration Repair with a New Monocanalicular Silicone Tube. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;33(1):27-30. doi: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000000620.
  22. Wladis EJ, Aakalu VK, Tao JP, Sobel RK, Freitag SK, Foster JA, Mawn LA. Monocanalicular Stents in Eyelid Lacerations: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2019 Sep;126(9):1324-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.03.045.
  23. Mangan MS, Turan SG, Ocak SY. Pediatric canalicular laceration repair using the Mini Monoka versus Masterka monocanalicular stent. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2023;86(1):46-51. doi: 10.5935/0004-2749.20220084.