Table 2

Summary of the literature review

StudyYear publishedStudy typeNMethod of canalicular/lacrimal system reconstructionFollow-up (months)Epiphora
N (%)		Comments
Laissez-faire/no reconstruction to lacrimal system
Smit and Mourits101999Retrospective case series7*Upper canaliculi intactNot specified3 (42.9)

  • Only in cold and wind.

  • Grade 1 and 2 Munk.

Meadows and Manners172003Retrospective case series1*Glabellar or modified glabellar flap
Upper and lower canaliculi excised		230 (0)
Madge et al182010Retrospective case series20Direct closure (1/20), complex reconstruction (19/20)Median 25
Range 2–90		15 (75)

  • Subsequent lacrimal bypass tube insertion, 4/20.

  • Unknown severity.

Onaran et al192011Case report1Paramedian forehead flap81 (100)

  • Mild

Kesiktas et al142015Retrospective case series11Glabellar rotation+nasolabial V-Y advancement flap69 (81.8)

  • Unknown severity.

  • Lagophthalmos, 4/9.

Marsupialisation
Older121979Retrospective case series3Marsupialisation+silicone stent24–360 (0)

  • Unknown severity/quantification

Holds and Anderson201993Retrospective case series29Marsupialisation following medial cantholysis for central/lateral lid tumours≥61 (3.4)

  • Intermittent epiphora

Stent
McCord211980Retrospective case series22*Remnant canalicular stump externalised (‘-ostomy’ manner)+silicone stentNot specified0 (0)

  • Four overall (N=31) required canaliculostomy repositioning

Harrington221982Retrospective case series19*Silicone stent or Veirs’ rod, most bicanalicularRange 2–905 (26.3)

  • Minimal or slight epiphora, 4/19.

  • Only in cold and wind, 1/19.

Lindgren et al232000Prospective cohort15*Silicone stent (6/15)Median 48
Range 3–120		9 (60)

  • Surgery to improve lacrimal drainage failed, 4/9.

  • Minor, no further surgery, 5/9.

Perry and Allen152016Retrospective case series8*Crawford tubeMean 5.6
Range 4–16		1 (12.5)

  • Continued epiphora despite patent lacrimal system

van Burink et al162018Retrospective case series10*Mini-Monoka stent, sutured31 (10)

  • Grade 1 Munk

Park and Kim242020Case report1Remnant canaliculus transposed+Mini-Monoka (not specified if sutured)
120 (0)

  • Good tear drainage on dacyroscintigraphy at 6 months

Various
Lowry et al251997Retrospective case series3*

  • Silicone stent (2/3).

  • Marsupialisation (1/3).

  • 60, 84.

  • 7.

0 (0)

  • No evidence of nasolacrimal obstruction by final examination

Motomura et al262006Retrospective case series3

  • Laissez-faire (2/3).

  • Jones tube (1/3).

Mean 20
Range 12–25		2 (66.7)

  • Laissez-faire reconstruction, only with crying/in wind

Morton112016Retrospective case series18*Marsupialisation if possible, or laissez faire (not specified how many in each)Not specified0 (0)

  • None with ‘excess watering’

Yazici et al272021Retrospective case series14*

  • Laissez-faire (12/14).

  • Silicone stent (2/14).

Median 19
Range 1–91		3 (21.4%)

  • ‘Persistent epiphora’.

  • All three bicanalicular involving.

Other
Zapala et al281992Retrospective case series9*Conjunctivorhinostomy, conjunctivodacyrocystorhinostomy, conjunctivosinusotomyNot specified6 (66.7)

  • Partial obstruction, periodic epiphora worse outdoors (6/9).

  • Failure (3/9).

Parker et al292014Retrospective case series3Paramedian forehead flap with conjunctivorhinostomy using an AlloDerm as a conduit material12, 18 and 130 (0)

  • Initially minimal epiphora in 2/3, but spontaneously resolved by last follow-up

  • *Only those within the study with medial lid tumours requiring sacrifice of any part of the lacrimal system for tumour margin clearance are included in this table.