ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2016
Bicanalicular versus monocanalicular intubation after failed probing in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Use of Stents in Children with Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction Requiring Surgical Intervention: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of probing with or without intubation, and/or inferior turbinate fracture in simple congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Lacrimal Intubation in the Management of Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction: A Prospective Comparative Study.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Probing and nasolacrimal intubation outcomes in children over 18 Months of age with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Nasal endoscopic features and outcomes of nasal endoscopy guided bicanalicular intubation for complex persistent congenital nasolacrimal duct obstructions.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Endoscopic-guided monocanalicular versus bicanalicular Ritleng intubation for treating congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in patients aged 24-53 months.Oman journal of ophthalmologyArticle
- Monocanalicular Intubation in Children with Incomplete Complex Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction Older Than Five Years of Age.Journal of current ophthalmologyArticle
- Pediatric canalicular laceration repair using the Mini Monoka versus Masterka monocanalicular stent.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologiaArticle
- Insights in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Romanian journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the clinical outcomes of different intubation techniques in the cases of failed primary probing.
methodsThis retrospective study was performed on 338 patients with the diagnosis of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction with age 1-4y that had failed primary probing. Intubation was performed under light sedation in operating room and the stent was left 3mo in place. Clinical outcome was investigated 3mo after tube removal.
resultsBicanalicular intubation method had higher complete and relative success rates compared to monocanalicular intubation (
conclusionOverall success rate of bicanalicular intubation is superior to monocanalicular technique especially in older ages. Also, based upon our clinical outcomes, Masterka intubation is not recommended in cases of failed probing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.