ArticleMedicine2020
Dacryocystitis secondary to neglected silicone tube in lacrimal duct for 10 years: A case report.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionContracture of dacryocyst by an implanted lacrimal silicone tube is rare. This report describes a unique case of secondary dacryocystitis and the contracture of dacryocyst caused by a lacrimal silicone tube that was placed in the lacrimal system for 10 years. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 63-year-old female was diagnosed with chronic dacryocystitis at a local hospital and underwent surgical treatment 10 years ago. In the past month, the patient complained of persistent tearing and purulent secretion from the eyes. DIAGNOSIS: The patient was diagnosed with secondary dacryocystitis, based on clinical features and the presence of the silicone stent, granulation tissue formation, and dacryocyst contracture in the lacrimal duct, as observed by nasal endoscopy.
interventionsFor treatment, the implanted silicone tube in the patient was removed, the lacrimal duct and nasal mucosa was anastomosed, and a new lacrimal silicone tube was placed again. OUTCOMES: Following the surgery, the patient recounted that there were no symptoms, and follow-up examinations performed over a 1-month period posttreatment revealed no recurrence of obstruction or dacryocystitis. Therefore, the surgeon removed the lacrimal drainage tube and asked the patient to return to the outpatient department regularly for examination.
conclusionThe findings, in this case, suggest that silicone tubes are safe and effective, and can be placed in the lacrimal drainage system. However, in this patient, prolonged intubation caused chronic inflammation, granulation tissue formation, and dacryocyst contracture. Our findings could inform surgeons to consider the reasonable duration of intubation for treating cases of lacrimal obstruction, in order to avoid unnecessary complications.
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.