September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Outcomes of revision conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy with Jones tubes.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Bryce Radmall
    Ophthalmology, Casey Eye Institute , Beaverton, Oregon, United States
  • Eric Ahn
    Oculoplastics, Eye Consultants of Northern Virginia, Springfield, Virginia, United States
  • Eric Steele
    Division of Oculoplastics, Casey Eye Institute , Portland, Oregon, United States
  • Roger Dailey
    Division of Oculoplastics, Casey Eye Institute , Portland, Oregon, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Bryce Radmall, None; Eric Ahn, None; Eric Steele, None; Roger Dailey, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  This manuscript was supported in part by an unrestricted grant to Casey Eye Institute from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, New York.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 692. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Bryce Radmall, Eric Ahn, Eric Steele, Roger Dailey; Outcomes of revision conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy with Jones tubes.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):692.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose : Determine the success rate of revision conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy (CDCR) with Jones tubes (JT).

Methods : A retrospective chart review was performed identifying those undergoing external and endoscopic CDCR from January 1, 2006 to November 1, 2014. Only those patients having revision CDCR (a patient’s second CDCR), and at least six months follow up were included. The primary outcomes were time to failure of revision CDCRs and the number of subsequent repeat CDCRs needed.

Results : A total of 18 eyes from 16 patients met the inclusion criteria. Average patient age was 57.7 years, with nine females and seven males all of whom were Caucasian. There were nine frosted and nine non-frosted JTs placed at the time of each eye’s initial CDCR. 8/9 frosted JTs either migrated in too deeply or were lost in the nose by history. 5/9 non-frosted JTs were lost having completely migrated out, with the remaining 4/9 migrating too deep to replace. Revision CDCR involved the use of fifteen frosted JTs and three non-frosted JTs, with nine patients requiring lysis of scar tissue involving the nasal ostium, three patients needing changes to the trajectory of the CDCR tract, and eight requiring subtotal middle turbinectomy. Six eyes required further CDCR, four requiring one more CDCR and two each requiring three more CDCRs. Average time from revision CDCR to repeat CDCR was 1604.8 (343-4773) days. Kaplan Meier analysis showed 50% of revision CDCR functioning at 10 years postoperatively.

Conclusions : Most patients undergoing revision CDCR required no further surgery, although 33% needed at least one or more additional CDCRs and this group as a whole over time may have a higher rate of reoperation.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.


This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.