CDCR with buccal mucosal graft: comparative and histopathological study

Conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy (CDCR) is a procedure with a high functional success rate, on the other hand post-operative complications are frequent and tube replacement is often required. Therefore, new investigations were undertaken in order to relieve the undesired effects of the tube. Implantation of the Jones tube circumscribed with a buccal mucosal graft and subsequent removal of the tube when an epithelium lined track was formed has been reported in the literature in recent years. In this study efficacy and safety of this alternative technique was evaluated.

CDCR with insertion of Jones tube surrounded with a buccal mucosal graft was performed on 14 patients (14 eyes) between September 1995 and March 1997 and results were evaluated. Results were compared with our previous series of traditional CDCR, involving 22 patients (22 eyes).

Functional success was obtained in all cases with relief of epiphora after a mean follow-up of 13.7+/-5.7 months. In 11 cases, tubes were removed at the sixth post-operative month and passage was blocked in 9 cases. Subsequent surgical tube reinsertion was performed in those patients. Biopsy specimens were obtained in two cases during tube replacement and were examined histologically. Disarrangement of the basal epithelial cells and infiltration of the surrounding connective tissue with round cells were observed. These histopathological findings suggested a significant graft degeneration threatening the continuity of the passage. Tube displacement existed in two patients, and partial mucosal graft extrusion was apparent in one case during the period with the tube still inserted. Surgical tube replacement was required in only two cases to correct lateral migration of the tube. Incidence of complications and need for surgical tube replacement were found to be less than our previous series of 22 CDCR patients without buccal mucosa grafting.

These findings suggest that CDCR with buccal mucosal graft is a promising new method for the treatment of epiphora because of its low incidence of complications during the period with the tube. However, tube removal at the sixth post-operative month is probably not indicated. Therefore, studies with larger series and longer follow-up should be undertaken to confirm the advantages of the technique.