Objective To analyze the therapy effects of treating chronic dacryocystitis with probing of lacrimal passage, the ball head silicone tube implantation and probing of lacrimal passage combined with the ball head silicone tube im-plantation. Methods From February 2012 to September 2013, in the People's Hospital of Liuzhou City, 112 patiens (170 eyes) with chronic dacryocystitis were retrospectively analyzed and the data of patients were collected. 58 eyes were treated with probing of lacrimal passage (group 1), 57 eyes were treated with the ball head silicone tube implanta-tion (ball head silicone tube implantation group), and 55 eyes were treated with probing of lacrimal passage combined with the ball head silicone tube implantation (combined operation group). All patients were followed 6 to 12 months af-ter operation. Indexes like the patency of lacrimal passages, Lacrimal duct obstruction symptoms were observed and compared. As the standard to recurred, better and invalid, effective rate was calculated. Results The effective rate of probing of lacrimal passage group was 77.58%, that of ball head silicone tube implantation group was 80.70% and that of combined operation group was 89.09%. The effective rate of combined operation group was compared with those of the other two groups, the differences were statistically significant (P< 0.05), the effective rate of probing of lacrimal passage group and ball head silicone tube implantation group were compared, the difference was not statistically signifi-cant (P> 0.05). Conclusion Among the three ways of operation, probing of lacrimal passage in combination with the ball head silicone tube implantation is the best way to cure chronic dacryocystitis. The ball head silicone tube implan-tation and probing of lacrimal passage have good curative effect and there is no significant difference between the two ways. Probing of lacrimal passage in combination withhe ball head silicone tube implantation has the advantage of low cost, short operation time and minor injury, thus worth further clinical usage.%目的：比较泪道浚通术、球头硅胶管植入术、泪道浚通联合球头硅胶管植入术治疗慢性泪囊炎的效果。方法选择2012年2月~2013年9月在柳州市人民医院接受手术治疗的112例慢性泪囊炎患者(170眼)分为三组，58眼接受泪道浚通术(泪道浚通术组)，57眼接受球头硅胶管植入术(球头硅胶管植入术组)，55眼接受泪道浚通联合球头硅胶管植入术(联合术组)。所有患者随访期6~12个月，期间观察其临床症状的改善程度(包括泪道冲洗通畅度、泪道阻塞的症状和体征消失程度)，以治愈、好转和无效作为疗效评价标准，计算有效率。结果泪道浚通组有效率为77.58%。球头硅胶管植入术组有效率80.70%。泪道浚通联合球头硅胶管植入术组有效率89.09%，联合术组与其他两组疗效比较，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；泪道浚通术组和球头硅胶管植入术组有效率比较，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论三种手术方式中，泪道浚通联合球头硅胶管植入是治疗慢性泪囊炎最有效的方法，球头硅胶管植入术及泪道浚通术疗效次之，两者无显著差异。泪道浚通联合球头硅胶管植入术成本低廉，手术时间短，微创，值得推广运用。
展开▼
