Skip to main content
. 2020 Apr 7;2020(4):CD012309. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012309.pub2

Kim 2002.

Methods Study design: randomized controlled trial, parallel group
Unit of analysis: eyes
Number randomized: 100 participants in total, 50 participants (59 eyes) in Group A, 50 participants (62 eyes) in Group B
Number of arms: 2
Enrollment start year: 1993
Length of follow‐up: average of 10.2 months (range 6 to 24 months)
Sample size calculations: not reported
Losses to follow‐up: none
Participants Country: South Korea
Age (mean (SD)): 52 (NR) in total
Females (n (%)): 89 (89) in total, 45 (90) in Group A, 44 (88) in Group B
Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of nasolacrimal duct obstruction
Exclusion criteria: not reported
Study group differences: not reported
Interventions Intervention: Group A: endonasal DCR with 0.2 mg/mL MMC application during surgery
Comparison intervention: Group B: endonasal DCR
Outcomes Measured outcomes:

  • functional success, defined as the relief of epiphora

  • anatomic success, defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation

  • ostium size on nasal endoscopy postoperatively


Adverse events: granulation tissue, membranous obstruction, protrusion of silicone tube, prolapse of orbital fat, canaliculitis, nasal mucosal erosion
Identification Author name: Kim Yt
Institution: Yeungnam University Hospital
Email: chungwha@med.yu.ac.kr
Notes Funding source: not reported
Declarations of interest: not reported
Trial registration number: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Used 100 color cards (50 blue, 50 yellow) and randomly chose from a bag to assign participants.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Color cards were used to conceal treatment allocation.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Masking of participants and study personnel was not reported.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Masking of outcome assessors was not reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk There were no missing data.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No trial or protocol registration available for comparison to ascertain selective outcome reporting.
Other bias Low risk Study appears to be free of other sources of bias.