Article Sidebar

PDF (Tiếng Việt)
Published: 2026-08-25
Abstract Views: 0
Views PDF (Tiếng Việt): 0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v205i8.5331
Issue
Vol. 205 No. 8 (2026)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Hạnh, N. T. H., Anh, T. Q., & Thành, Đoàn K. (2026). Early evaluation of monocanalicular stenting in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Journal of Medical Research, 205(8), 306-312. https://doi.org/10.52852/tcncyh.v205i8.5331

Early evaluation of monocanalicular stenting in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Nguyen Thi Hong Hanh, Tran Quynh Anh, Doan Kim Thanh

Main Article Content

Abstract

A clinical interventional study was conducted on 20 eyes with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction at Ho Chi Minh City Eye Hospital to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monocanalicular silicone intubation using the Masterka tube. The patients were followed up at 1 day, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months after surgery. The results showed a 95% success rate at 3 months postoperatively, with only one case of tube prolapse; however, the lacrimal drainage system remained patent and no recurrent obstruction was observed. The mean surgical time was 3.8 minutes. All parents were satisfied with the treatment outcomes, and no serious complication was recorded during follow-up. Masterka intubation demonstrated high efficacy, safety, a short surgical procedure, and potential for wider clinical application in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Article Details

Keywords

probing, Masterka, Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction

References

1. Petris C, Liu D. Probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7(7):CD011109. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011109.pub2
2. Robb RM. Probing and irrigation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104(3):378-379. doi:10.1001/archopht.1986.01050150078031
3. Lee H, Ahn J, Lee JM, Park M, Baek S. Clinical effectiveness of monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone intubation for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(4):1010-1014. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e31824dfc8a
4. Vernat-Tabarly O, Delmas J, Robert PY. Congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: pulled monocanalicular intubation (Monoka) versus pushed monocanalicular intubation (Masterka). J Fr Ophtalmol. 2020;43(6):461-466. doi:10.1016/j.jfo.2019.10.016
5. Khatib L, Nazemzadeh M, Revere K, Katowitz WR, Katowitz JA. Use of the Masterka for complex nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children. J AAPOS. 2017;21(5):380-383. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.05.033
6. Chi YC, Lai CC. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with short-term, pushed-type bicanalicular intubation vs pulled-type monocanalicular intubation for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:946083. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.946083
7. 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
8. Eshraghi B, Akbari MR, Fard MA, Abrishami Y, Salour H. Outcome of monocanalicular intubation for complex congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: the role of age. Rom J Ophthalmol. 2022;66(1):49-54.
9. Andalib D, Mansoori H. A comparison between monocanalicular and pushed monocanalicular silicone intubation in the treatment of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Int J Ophthalmol. 2014;7(6):1039-1042. doi:10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2014.06.24