Advertisement

Allergic conjunctivitis and contact dermatitis following silicone tube intubation

  • Teresa Chen
    Affiliations
    Division of Orbital and Ophthalmic Plastic Surgery, Jules Stein Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif
    Search for articles by this author
  • Kelsey A. Roelofs
    Affiliations
    Division of Orbital and Ophthalmic Plastic Surgery, Jules Stein Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif
    Search for articles by this author
  • Daniel B. Rootman
    Correspondence
    Correspondence to: Daniel B. Rootman, Orbital and Ophthalmic Plastic Surgery, UCLA, 300 Stein Plaza, ELW Building, Los Angeles, CA 90095
    Affiliations
    Division of Orbital and Ophthalmic Plastic Surgery, Jules Stein Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif
    Search for articles by this author
      Lacrimal stenting systems have been used to maintain patency of the canaliculi after insults such as surgery, trauma, radiation, and chemotherapy. The first nasolacrimal stents were made of silver wire and used by Graue in 1932. Since then, other materials have been used, including silk, nylon, polyethylene, and polypropylene. Modern-day stents are most commonly made of silicone because this material is pliable, affordable, and widely available. Previously thought to be inert, there is evidence that silicone can elicit a foreign-body and inflammatory reaction.
      • Vijaya Bhaskar TB
      • Ma N
      • Lendlein A
      • Roch T
      The interaction of human macrophage subsets with silicone as a biomaterial.
      While such reactions have been reported for other medical devices, it has not been discussed in the case of lacrimal intubation apparatuses. The purpose of this report is to describe a case of allergic conjunctivitis and contact dermatitis following endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) with silicone intubation. The collection and evaluation of protected patient health information were compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Vijaya Bhaskar TB
        • Ma N
        • Lendlein A
        • Roch T
        The interaction of human macrophage subsets with silicone as a biomaterial.
        Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2015; 61: 119-133
        • Zeplin PH
        • Larena-Avellaneda A
        • Jordan M
        • Laske M
        • Schmidt K.
        Phosphorylcholine-coated silicone implants: effect on inflammatory response and fibrous capsule formation.
        Ann Plast Surg. 2010; 65: 560-564
        • Kunda LD
        • Stidham KR
        • Inserra MM
        • Roland PS
        • Franklin D
        • Roberson JB.
        Silicone allergy: a new cause for cochlear implant extrusion and its management.
        Otol Neurotol. 2006; 27: 1078-1082
        • Leer M
        • Simms HN.
        Silicone allergy mimicking shunt infection.
        Br J Neurosurg. 2020; 2020: 1-2
        • Kirwan L.
        Two cases of apparent silicone allergy.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995; 96: 236-237
        • Oprea ML
        • Schnöring H
        • Sachweh JS
        • Ott H
        • Biertz J
        • Vazquez-Jimenez JF.
        Allergy to pacemaker silicone compounds: recognition and surgical management.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 87: 1275-1277
        • Prasad A
        • Reeder MJ.
        Allergic contact dermatitis to silicone in a continuous positive airway pressure mask.
        Contact Dermatitis. 2021; 84: 460-462
        • Puri S
        • Dornhoffer JL
        • North PE.
        Contact dermatitis to silicone after cochlear implantation.
        Laryngoscope. 2005; 115: 1760-1762
        • Stuck BA
        • Hecksteden K
        • Klimek L
        • Hörmann K
        [Type I hypersensitivity to a silicone tube after laryngectomy].
        HNO. 2004; 52: 255-257
        • Patel UO
        • Fox SR
        • Moy JN
        • Korbet SM.
        Pruritic rash and eosinophilia in a patient receiving peritoneal dialysis.
        Semin Dial. 2011; 24: 338-340
        • Sakuragi Y
        • Sawada Y
        • Nakamura M.
        Leukoderma following allergic contact dermatitis caused by the silicone component silprene-30A/B in swimming goggles.
        Contact Dermatitis. 2017; 77: 418-419
        • Wolf LE
        • Lappé M
        • Peterson RD
        • Ezrailson EG.
        Human immune response to polydimethylsiloxane (silicone): screening studies in a breast implant population.
        FASEB J. 1993; 7: 1265-1268
        • Bekerecioglu M
        • Onat AM
        • Tercan M
        • et al.
        The association between silicone implants and both antibodies and autoimmune diseases.
        Clin Rheumatol. 2008; 27: 147-150
        • Dooms-Goossens A
        • Bruze M
        • Buysse L
        • Fregert S
        • Gruvberger B
        • Stals H.
        Contact allergy to allyl glycidyl ether present as an impurity in 3-glycidyloxypropyltrimethoxysilane, a fixing additive in silicone and polyurethane resins.
        Contact Dermatitis. 1995; 33: 17-19
        • Virden CP
        • Dobke MK
        • Stein P
        • Parsons CL
        • Frank DH.
        Subclinical infection of the silicone breast implant surface as a possible cause of capsular contracture.
        Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1992; 16: 173-179
        • Mimura M
        • Oku H
        • Ueki M
        • Sato B
        • Ikeda T.
        A case of neglected silicone tube in lacrimal duct for 20 years.
        Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep. 2018; 11: 41-44
        • Ruby AJ
        • Lissner GS
        • O'Grady R
        Surface reaction on silicone tubes used in the treatment of nasolacrimal drainage system obstruction.
        Ophthalmic Surg. 1991; 22: 745-748
        • Ye L
        • Peng Y
        • Wang Y
        • Zeng K
        • Zhang JX.
        Pathology of the lower nasolacrimal duct mucosa at multiple time points after lacrimal retrograde catheterization in rabbit.
        Genet Mol Res. 2015; 14: 7929-7936
        • Madge SN
        • Selva D.
        Intubation in routine dacryocystorhinostomy: why we do what we do.
        Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009; 37: 620-623
        • Unlu HH
        • Toprak B
        • Aslan A
        • Guler C.
        Comparison of surgical outcomes in primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2002; 111: 704-709
        • Chong KKL
        • Lai FHP
        • Ho M
        • Luk A
        • Wong BW
        • Young A.
        Randomized trial on silicone intubation in endoscopic mechanical dacryocystorhinostomy (SEND) for primary nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
        Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 2139-2145
        • Komínek P
        • Cervenka S
        • Matousek P.
        Does the length of intubation affect the success of treatment for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction?.
        Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 26: 103-105