目的：观察新型RS泪道引流管和环形硅胶管置入术治疗泪小管断裂的疗效及安全性。

方法：回顾性研究。选取2018-08/2021-08我院泪小管断裂患者64例64眼，根据治疗方式不同，分为RS泪道引流管置入术组34眼和环形硅胶管置入术组30眼。比较两组患者术后3、6mo临床疗效、手术时间、术后眼睑肿胀消退时间、并发症情况。

结果：RS泪道引流管置入术组和环形硅胶管置入术组患者术后3mo(94% vs 87%)和术后6mo总有效率(91% vs 83%)比较均无差异(均P<0.05)； RS泪道引流管置入术组手术时间、术后眼睑肿胀消退时间均明显短于环形硅胶管置入术组(均P<0.001)； RS泪道引流管置入术组患者并发症总发生率低于环形硅胶管置入术组(12% vs 33%，P=0.037)。

结论：RS泪道引流管和环形硅胶管置入术治疗泪小管断裂均能获得良好疗效，但RS泪道引流管治疗的患者手术时间更短，术后恢复更快，并发症较少，安全性更好。

METHODS: Retrospective study. A total of 64 patients(64 eyes)with lacrimal canaliculus laceration were selected, and divided into group A(34 eyes treated with RS-type lacrimal drainage tube placement)and group B(30 eyes treated with annular silicone tube placement)according to different treatment. Clinical effect, operation time, regression time of postoperative eyelid swelling and complications at 3 and 6mo after surgery were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS:There was no statistically significant difference in the total response rate between the two groups at 3mo(94% vs. 87%)and 6mo(91% vs. 83%)after operation(all P<0.05). The operation time and regression time of postoperative eyelid swelling of group A were significantly shorter than those of group B(all P<0.001). The total incidence of complications in group A was significantly lower than that in group B(12% vs. 33%, P=0.037).

CONCLUSION:Both RS-type lacrimal drainage tube placement and annular silicone tube placement are effective in the treatment of lacrimal canaliculus laceration. However, the operation time of patients treated with RS-type lacrimal drainage tube is shorter, and patients recover faster after operation. In addition, the complications are fewer, and it is safer.