Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

A prospective study comparing mini-invasive and conventional canaliculotomy of punctum-sparing canaliculotomy for primary canaliculitis treatment

Eye volume 37, pages 2289–2293 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Purpose

To compare outcomes of mini-invasive canaliculotomy with those of conventional canaliculotomy conducted using the punctum-sparing approach for the treatment of primary canaliculitis.

Methods

A prospective, comparative, and interventional case series study was conducted on 118 individuals with unilateral inferior primary canaliculitis. These patients were randomly divided into two groups, each with 59 cases. Group A underwent mini-invasive canaliculotomy (minor incision ~3 mm), whereas group B received conventional canaliculotomy (long incision ~6–8 mm). Punctum-sparing and canaliculus-reconstructing procedure was used to treat all patients. Both groups had silicone tube intubations and were retained in the lacrimal passages for one month. Both groups’ surgical success rates and postoperative complications were measured at the last follow-up of 12 months after surgery.

Results

A total of 108 patients were finally included in the study, 53 in group A and 55 in group B. There were 79 females and 29 males with a median age of 57 ± 13.4 years. The anatomical success rates for groups A and B were 96.2% and 92.7% (P = 0.679), respectively. Functional success rate was accomplished by considerably more patients in group A (50/53, 94.3%) compared to group B (45/55, 81.8%) (P = 0.046). No recurrences were seen during follow-up visits in any of the participants.

Conclusions

The two procedures employed in this study to treat primary canaliculitis achieves excellent clinical effects with no incidence of recurrence. The mini-invasive canaliculotomy is worthy to be recommended for its higher functional success rate with mini-invasion of canaliculus and intact lacrimal punctum.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Depicts the steps of the method of mini-invasive canaliculotomy with curettage.
Fig. 2: The procedure for conventional canaliculotomy with curettage is illustrated.
Fig. 3: The signs and symptoms of primary canaliculitis and the surgical results of a mini-invasive canaliculotomy with curettage are shown.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Vécsei VP, Huber-Spitzy V, Arocker-Mettinger E, Steinkogler FJ. Canaliculitis: difficulties in diagnosis, differential diagnosis and comparison between conservative and surgical treatment. Ophthalmologica. 1994;208:314–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaliki S, Ali MJ, Honavar SG, Chandrasekhar G, Naik MN. Primary canaliculitis: clinical features, microbiological profile, and management outcome. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;28:355–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mark A, Pavilack BRF. Thorough curettage in the treatment of chronic canaliculitis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:200–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Xiang S, Lin B, Pan Q, Zheng M, Qin X, Wang Y, et al. Clinical features and surgical outcomes of primary canaliculitis with concretions. Med (Baltim). 2017;96:e6188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anand S, Hollingworth K, Kumar V, Sandramouli S. Canaliculitis: the incidence of long-term epiphora following canaliculotomy. Orbit. 2004;23:19–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Demant E, Hurwitz JJ. Canaliculitis: a review of 12 cases. Can J Ophthalmol. 1980;15:73–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zaldívar RA, Bradley EA. Primary canaliculitis. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;25:481–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Khu J, Mancini R. Punctum-sparing canaliculotomy for the treatment of canaliculitis. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;28:63–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yuksel D, Hazirolan D, Sungur G, Duman S. Actinomyces canaliculitis and its surgical treatment. Int Ophthalmol. 2012;32:183–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Su Y, Zhang L, Li L, Fan X, Xiao C. Surgical procedure of canaliculoplasty in treating primary canaliculitis associated with canalicular dilatation. BMC Ophthalmol. 2020;20:245.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Freedman JR, Markert MS, Cohen AJ. Primary and secondary lacrimal canaliculitis: a review of the literature. Surv Ophthalmol. 2011;56:336–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lin SC, Kao SC, Tsai CC, Cheng CY, Kau HC, Hsu WM, et al. Clinical characteristics and factors associated with the outcome of lacrimal canaliculitis. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011;89:759–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liyanage SE, Wearne M. Lacrimal canaliculitis as a cause of recurrent conjunctivitis. Optometry. 2009;80:479–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Balıkoğlu Yılmaz M, Şen E, Evren E, Elgin U, Yılmazbaş P. Canaliculitis awareness. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2016;46:25–29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee MJ, Choung HK, Kim NJ, Khwarg SI. One-snip punctoplasty and canalicular curettage through the punctum: a minimally invasive surgical procedure for primary canaliculitis. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:2027–2030.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang Q, Xu B, Li XX, Li MW. Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of primary canaliculitis among patients in Beijing, China. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:904756.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Briscoe D, Edelstein E, Zacharopoulos I, Keness Y, Kilman A, Zur F, et al. Actinomyces canaliculitis: diagnosis of a masquerading disease. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;242:682–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim UR, Wadwekar B, Prajna L. Primary canaliculitis: The incidence, clinical features, outcome and long-term epiphora after snip-punctoplasty and curettage. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2015;29:274–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang M, Cong R, Yu B. Outcomes of canaliculotomy with and without silicone tube intubation in management of primary canaliculitis. Curr Eye Res. 2021;46:1812–5.

  20. Ali MJ, Zetzsche M, Scholz M, Hahn D, Gaffling S, Heichel J, et al. New insights into the lacrimal pump. Ocul Surf. 2020;18:689–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Buttanri IB, Serin D, Akbaba M, Karslioğlu S. Incision-sparing management of canaliculitis. Orbit. 2014;33:356–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Perumal B, Meyer DR. Vertical canaliculotomy with a retrograde expression of concretions for the treatment of canaliculitis. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;31:119–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bothra N, Sharma A, Bansal O, Ali MJ. Punctal dilatation and non-incisional canalicular curettage in the management of infectious canaliculitis. Orbit. 2020;39:408–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All work was performed at Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University. The authors would like to thank Dr Jieliang Shi and Ende Wu for providing medical treatment to the patients and collecting clinical data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Baoan Central Hospital of Shenzhen, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

    Mingling Wang

  2. Department of Orbital and Oculoplastic Surgery, Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China

    Yingjie Ma, Yunhai Tu, Wencan Wu & Bo Yu

Authors
  1. Mingling Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yingjie Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yunhai Tu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wencan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bo Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MW wrote the paper, submitted the study, and collected clinical data. BY conducted the survey, took responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the analysis, and revised the paper. WW planned and initiated the study. YM provided medical care for the patients and collected the clinical data. YT wrote the statistical analysis plan, designed data collection, and analyzed the data.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wencan Wu or Bo Yu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, M., Ma, Y., Tu, Y. et al. A prospective study comparing mini-invasive and conventional canaliculotomy of punctum-sparing canaliculotomy for primary canaliculitis treatment. Eye 37, 2289–2293 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02333-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02333-7

Search

Advanced search

Quick links