Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Pediatric canalicular laceration repair using the Mini Monoka versus Masterka monocanalicular stent / Correção de laceração canalicular pediátrica usando os stents monocanaliculares Mini-Monoka versus Masterka
Mangan, Mehmet Serhat; Turan, Sevil Gul; Ocak, Serap Yurttaser.
  • Mangan, Mehmet Serhat; University of Health Sciences. Haydarpasa Numune Education and Research Hospital. Sadik Eratik Eye Clinic. Istanbul. TR
  • Turan, Sevil Gul; University of Health Sciences. Okmeydani Education and Research Hospital. Department of Ophthalmology. Istanbul. TR
  • Ocak, Serap Yurttaser; University of Health Sciences. Okmeydani Education and Research Hospital. Department of Ophthalmology. Istanbul. TR
Arq. bras. oftalmol ; 86(1): 46-51, Jan.-Feb. 2023. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-1403482
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT

Purpose:

One of the most important disadvantages of using Mini Monoka stents in pediatric canalicular laceration repair is premature stent loss. In this study, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes between the use of Mini Monoka and Masterka monocanalicular stents in children and discuss the potential causes of premature stent loss.

Methods:

The medical records of 36 patients who underwent surgical repair of canalicular lacerations were retrospectively reviewed. Children aged <18 years who underwent canalicular laceration repair with either Mini Monoka or Masterka and had at least 6 months of follow-up after stent removal were included in the study. The patients' demographics, mechanism of injury, type of stent used, premature stent loss, and success rate were analyzed. Success was defined as stent removal without subsequent epiphora and premature stent loss.

Results:

Twenty-seven children fulfilled our study criteria, and their data were included in the analyses. Mini Monoka was used in 14 patients (51.9%), whereas Masterka was used in 13 patients (48.1%). The preoperative clinical features, including age, sex, and mechanism of injury, were similar between the two groups. The mean age was 8.3 ± 5.5 years in the Mini Monoka group and 7.8 ± 5.9 years in the Masterka group (p=0.61). Three patients in the Mini Monoka group (21.4%) underwent reoperation due to premature stent loss. No premature stent loss was observed in the Masterka group. As a result, the rate of success was 78.6% in the Mini Monoka group, whereas it was 100% in the Masterka group (p=0.22).

Conclusions:

Even though the two groups did not show any statistically significant difference in success rate, we did not observe any premature stent loss in the Masterka group. Further studies with larger and randomized series are warranted to elaborate on these findings.
RESUMO
RESUMO

Objetivo:

Uma das desvantagens mais importantes do uso de stents Mini Monoka no reparo de lacerações canaliculares pediátricas é a perda prematura do stent. Neste estudo, objetivamos comparar os resultados clínicos dos stents monocanaliculares Mini Monoka e Masterka em crianças e discutir as possíveis causas da perda prematura do stent.

Métodos:

Foram incluídos nesta revisão retrospectiva 36 pacientes <18 anos de idade que se submeteram ao reparo cirúrgico de uma laceração canalicular com um stent Mini Monoka ou Masterka e tiveram pelo menos 6 meses de acompanhamento após a remoção do stent. Foram analisados os dados demográficos, o mecanismo da lesão, o tipo de stent utilizado, a ocorrência de perda prematura de stent e o sucesso da intervenção. O sucesso foi definido como a ausência de epífora após a remoção do stent, sem a perda prematura deste.

Resultados:

Vinte e sete pacientes preencheram os critérios do presente estudo e foram incluídos nas análises. O stent Mini Monoka foi usado em 14 pacientes (51,9%), enquanto o Masterka foi usado em 13 pacientes (48,1%). As características clínicas pré-operatórias, incluindo idade, sexo e mecanismo de lesão, foram semelhantes entre os dois grupos. A média de idade foi de 8,3 ± 5,5 anos no grupo Mini Monoka e de 7,8 ± 5,9 anos no grupo Masterka (p=0,61). Três pacientes do grupo Mini-Monoka (21,4%) tiveram que ser operados novamente por perda prematura do stent. Nenhuma perda prematura do stent foi observada no grupo Masterka. Como resultado, a taxa de sucesso foi de 78,6% no grupo Mini Monoka e de 100% no grupo Masterka (p=0,22).

Conclusões:

Embora nenhuma diferença estatisticamente significativa tenha sido detectada entre os dois grupos em termos de taxas de sucesso, não observamos nenhuma perda prematura de stent no grupo Masterka. São necessários mais estudos, com séries maiores e randomizadas, para chegar a maiores conclusões sobre esses achados.
Subject(s)


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Stents / Lacerations Type of study: Controlled clinical trial Limits: Adolescent / Child / Child, preschool / Humans Language: English Journal: Arq. bras. oftalmol Journal subject: Ophthalmology Year: 2023 Type: Article Affiliation country: Turkey Institution/Affiliation country: University of Health Sciences/TR

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Stents / Lacerations Type of study: Controlled clinical trial Limits: Adolescent / Child / Child, preschool / Humans Language: English Journal: Arq. bras. oftalmol Journal subject: Ophthalmology Year: 2023 Type: Article Affiliation country: Turkey Institution/Affiliation country: University of Health Sciences/TR