Journals / Anatolian Current Medical Journal / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 5

Clinical outcomes and factors associated with recurrence after bicanalicular silicone tube intubation: a large retrospective cohort study

Mehmet Göksel Ulaş(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL BEYOĞLU GÖZ SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0001-7049-7065
Efe Koşer(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL BEYOĞLU GÖZ SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0001-9750-0092
Yusuf Alperen Yaralı(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL BEYOĞLU GÖZ SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0009-0002-2852-6234
Oğuzhan Altunkaya(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL BEYOĞLU GÖZ SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0009-0000-2998-4486
Ayşe Çetin Efe(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL BEYOĞLU GÖZ SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0002-7699-0261
Fatma Poslu Karademir(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL BEYOĞLU GÖZ SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0001-9460-2501
Feyza Çukurova(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL BEYOĞLU GÖZ SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0002-9203-8342
Derya Özkan Tellioğlu(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL BEYOĞLU GÖZ SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0003-3742-1514
Ayşe Burcu Dirim(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL BEYOĞLU GÖZ SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0002-1041-021X
Pelin Kaynak(İSTANBUL YENİ YÜZYIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-2193-2355
Muhittin Taşkapılı(SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL BEYOĞLU GÖZ SAĞLIK UYGULAMA VE ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ)0000-0002-3089-7782
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-11
🏛️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)

These findings do not establish causality, fixation superiority, comparative effectiveness, or surgeon performance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: To evaluate long-term clinical outcomes and factors associated with recurrence after nasolacrimal drainage procedures with bicanalicular silicone intubation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: This retrospective cohort included 1576 patients (2094 eyes) treated between 2008 and 2025 at a tertiary referral center.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings do not establish causality, fixation superiority, comparative effectiveness, or surgeon performance.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2094 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Epiphora · lacrimal surgery · nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate long-term clinical outcomes and factors associated with recurrence after nasolacrimal drainage procedures with bicanalicular silicone intubation. Methods: This retrospective cohort included 1576 patients (2094 eyes) treated between 2008 and 2025 at a tertiary referral center. All tubes underwent square-knot fixation without additional intranasal fixation; no comparator group was available. Success required a Munk score of 0–1 and patent irrigation at final follow-up, coinciding with tube removal for eyes followed for only three months. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) logistic regression accounted for bilateral eye correlation. Sensitivity analyses compared pediatric and adult patients, repeated multivariable GEE in adults, and stratified follow-up (3–12, 13–24, and >24 months). Results: Recurrence occurred in 5.9% of eyes (123/2094), ranging from 5.5% after external dacryocystorhinostomy to 13.2% after probing with intubation (p=0.016). External dacryocystorhinostomy comprised over 90% of procedures, limiting comparisons. Epiphora, postoperative complications, and tube exposure occurred in 6.7%, 11.0%, and 5.3%, respectively; exposure was not significantly associated with recurrence. Multivariable GEE identified associatio with probing [odds ratio (OR) 2.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22–6.37; p=0.015], increasing age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.03; p=0.048), and attending-surgeon procedures (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.07–2.69; p=0.026). Recurrence was higher with longer documented follow-up. Conclusion: Standardized square-knot fixation was accompanied by 5.9% recurrence and 11.0% postoperative complications. Associations are descriptive and hypothesis-generating given subgroup imbalance, incomplete covariate information, variable follow-up, and residual confounding. The attending-surgeon association may reflect case selection or other unmeasured factors. These findings do not establish causality, fixation superiority, comparative effectiveness, or surgeon performance.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ulaş, M. G., Koşer, E., Yaralı, Y. A., Altunkaya, O., Efe, A. Ç., Karademir, F. P., Çukurova, F., Tellioğlu, D. Ö., Dirim, A. B., Kaynak, P., Taşkapılı, M. (2026). Clinical outcomes and factors associated with recurrence after bicanalicular silicone tube intubation: a large retrospective cohort study. Anatolian Current Medical Journal, Volume: 8 Issue: 5. https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.1968492

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. Shen X, Huang C, Wang S, Wen J. Optimisation of reduction for prolapsed silicone tube after lacrimal intubation. J Laryngol Otol. 2024; 138(5):535-539. doi:10.1017/S0022215123001706
  2. Sabermoghaddam AA, Hosseinpoor SS. Preventing silicone tube extrusion after nasolacrimal duct intubation in children. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2010; 5(4):280-283.
  3. Nakamura J, Kamao T, Mitani A, Mizuki N, Shiraishi A. Comparison of the efficacies of 1.0 and 1.5 mm silicone tubes for the treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):11785. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-16018-4
  4. Alruwaili R, Alanazi F, Alrashidi A, Hazazi M, Alenezi M. Comparative analysis of silicone tube intubation versus probing and balloon dilation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniofac Surg. 2024;35(4):1114-1119. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000010273
  5. Migliori ME, Putterman AM. Silicone intubation for the treatment of congenital lacrimal duct obstruction: successful results removing the tubes after six weeks. Ophthalmology. 1988;95(6):792-795. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(88)33122-2
  6. Ratliff CD, Meyer DR. Silicone intubation without intranasal fixation for treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Am J Ophthalmol. 1994;118(6):781-785. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(14)72558-9
  7. Hakim OM, El-Hag YG. Silicone intubation with trans-sac fixation to prevent tube dislocation. J AAPOS. 2005;9(6):558-562. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2005.08.001
  8. Baek JS, Lee S, Lee JH, Choi HS, Jang JW, Kim SJ. Predictors of silicone tube intubation success in patients with lacrimal drainage system stenosis. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2016;30(3):157-162. doi:10.3341/kjo.2016.30.3.157
  9. Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med. 2008;3:17. doi:10.1186/1751-0473-3-17
  10. Allen K, Berlin AJ. Dacryocystorhinostomy failure: association with nasolacrimal silicone intubation. Ophthalmic Surg. 1989;20(7):486-489. doi:10.3928/1542-8877-19890701-08
  11. Honavar SG, Prakash VE, Rao GN. Outcome of probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in older children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(1):42-48. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(00)00388-3
  12. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, Repka MX, Chandler DL, et al. Primary treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction with probing in children younger than 4 years. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(3):577-584.e3. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.07.030
  13. Anderson RL, Edwards JJ. Indications, complications and results with silicone stents. Ophthalmology. 1979;86(8):1474-1487. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(79)35374-X
  14. Woog JJ. The incidence of symptomatic acquired lacrimal outflow obstruction among residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1976-2000 (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2007;105:649-666.
  15. Tarbet KJ, Custer PL. External dacryocystorhinostomy. Surgical success, patient satisfaction, and economic cost. Ophthalmology. 1995;102(7):1065-1070. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(95)30910-4
  16. Fayers T, Laverde T, Tay E, Olver JM. Lacrimal surgery success after external dacryocystorhinostomy: functional and anatomical results using strict outcome criteria. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;25(6):472-475. doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e3181b81e9f
  17. Delaney YM, Khooshabeh R. External dacryocystorhinostomy for the treatment of acquired partial nasolacrimal obstruction in adults. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(5):533-535. doi:10.1136/bjo.86.5.533
  18. Hindman BJ, Gold CJ, Ray E, et al. Surgeon-specific treatment selection bias and heterogeneous perioperative practices in an observational spine surgery study. A statistical tutorial with implications for analysis of observational studies of perioperative interventions. World Neurosurg. 2023;173:e168-e179. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2023.02.027
  19. Alahmadawy YA, Abdelfattah RA, Elessawy KB. Assessment of the role of intranasal silicone-tube fixation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a comparative study. Delta J Ophthalmol. 2021;22(4):323-329. doi:10.4103/djo.djo_34_21
  20. Kang MG, Shim WS, Shin DK, Kim JY, Lee JE, Jung HJ. A systematic review of benefit of silicone intubation in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;11(2):81-88. doi:10.21053/ceo.2018.00031
  21. Kim DH, Kim SI, Jin HJ, Kim S, Hwang SH. The clinical efficacy of silicone stents for endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: a meta-analysis. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;11(3):151-157. doi:10.21053/ceo.2017.01781
  22. Mannor GE, Rose GE, Frimpong-Ansah K, Ezra E. Factors affecting the success of nasolacrimal duct probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;127(5):616-617. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(98)00432-2