Diplopia Following the Insertion of a Canalicular Bypass Tube: Etiology, Risk Factors, Management, and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the etiology, management, and possible risk factors for diplopia after canalicular bypass surgery. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective, noncomparative case series of patients who developed diplopia following canalicular bypass surgery were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-four cases of diplopia were identified across 12 institutions. Tubes were inserted as a primary procedure with external dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) (1; 4%) or without DCR (10; 42%) or as a secondary procedure after external (8; 33%) or endonasal (5; 21%) DCR. Factors predisposing to local damage were noted in 17 (71%): these factors included preexisting autoimmune/inflammatory condition (7 cases), medial canthal tumor resection (5 cases), preoperative radiotherapy (2 cases), 2 drug treatments (topical and systemic), and 1 local surgery. Horizontal diplopia was due to restriction of abduction and first noted at a median of 3.5 months (mean: 17.8 months, range: 1 day to 112 months) and persisted in 23 (96%) cases with a mean restriction of -2, affecting primary gaze in 4 patients and activities of daily living in 13 (42%). Seventeen patients received various treatments: 10 were operated on resulting in cure in 1 and improvement in 9. A stable degree of diplopia persisted in all but one patient. CONCLUSIONS: Restriction of abduction causing horizontal diplopia is a rare complication with canalicular bypass surgery and a notably high proportion occurred after tube placement without DCR; carunculectomy was not ubiquitous. Although in some the diplopia may be improved with intervention, the chance of cure is low. This complication should probably be included during informed consent for canalicular bypass tubes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".