 |
|
Comparison of the Efficacies of 0.94 mm and Double Silicone Tubes for Treatment of Canalicular Obstruction
Seong Chan Choi, Hye Sun Choi, Jae Woo Jang, Sung Joo Kim, Jung Hye Lee
Korean J Ophthalmol. 2017;31(1):1-8. Published online 2017 Feb 2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2017.31.1.1
|
|
Citations to this article as recorded by
 Research Progress in the Treatment of Lacrimal Duct Obstruction
瑶瑶 艾
Advances in Clinical Medicine.2023; 13(03): 4082. CrossRef Changes in Eyelid Position Following Silicone Tube Insertion and Removal in Dacryocystorhinostomy
Que Anh Vu, Ji Min Youn, Sehyun Baek
Journal of Craniofacial Surgery.2022; 33(3): e223. CrossRef Comparison of the efficacies of 1.0 and 1.5 mm silicone tubes for the treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction
Jutaro Nakamura, Tomoyuki Kamao, Arisa Mitani, Nobuhisa Mizuki, Atsushi Shiraishi
Scientific Reports.2022;[Epub] CrossRef Conjunctival dacryocystorhinostomy in the treatment of proximal lacrimal drainage obstruction
N.N. Krakhovetskiy, E.L. At´kova
Vestnik oftal'mologii.2020; 136(6): 65. CrossRef Repositioning a Prolapsed Tube After Bicanalicular Intubation of the Lacrimal System
Zhaodong Chu, Guohua Lu, Ying Tan, Yuan Deng
Ophthalmic Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery.2019; 35(6): 623. CrossRef Efficacy of Intraoperative Mitomycin C Eye Drops during and after Dacryocystorhinostomy for Canalicular Obstruction
Yu-Jin Choi, Seong Jae Kim, Ji Myong Yoo, Seong Wook Seo
Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society.2018; 59(10): 899. CrossRef
|