scholarly journals A retrospective study analysis of success rate following endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with stents

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 568
Author(s):  
Ritesh Mahajan ◽  
T. M. Nagaraj
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Objective Evaluation ◽  
Subjective Assessment ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Endoscopic Endonasal ◽  
Persistent Symptoms ◽  
Primary Surgery ◽  
Single Centre Study

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (EN DCR) has now become a procedure of choice for nasolacrimal duct obstruction or in chronic dacryocystitis. Lots of debate is still going on regarding stent placement following surgery. The purpose of this study is to analyse the subjective and objective success following EN DCR with stents.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> In this single centre study, 30 patients underwent EN DCR surgery from May 2011 to March 2013, out of those 20 eligible patients with 26 nasolacrimal duct obstructions underwent EN DCR with stents, and they were included in the study. Success rates were determined with subjective assessment of the patient symptoms and objective evaluation by lacrimal syringing.  </p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> 80.7% patients underwent primary surgery and 19.2% patient’s revision surgery, overall success rates was 88.4% out of which 95.2% success rate for primary surgery and 60% success rates of revision surgery. 11.5% of patients complained of persistent symptoms and success rate of ENDCR with stents was observed in 95.2% of patients after primary surgery and in 60% of patient’s after revision surgery. Stent removal was done on 4-6 weeks (mean duration- 5 weeks) and patients follow up time was 6 months.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Whether to stent or to not still remain a topic of debate in EN DCR surgery, however ENDCR with stents represents the procedure of choice for treating nasolacrimal duct obstructions.</p>

Endoscopic Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy: Results in 56 Patients

1994 ◽  
Vol 103 (5) ◽  
pp. 363-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manfred Weidenbecher ◽  
Werner Hosemann ◽  
Wolfgang Buhr
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct ◽  
Surgical Revision ◽  
Endonasal Surgery ◽  
Endoscopic Endonasal

Fifty-six patients with a complete stenosis of the nasolacrimal duct were treated by endoscopically controlled intranasal dacryocystorhinostomy according to West. Forty-four patients had idiopathic stenosis and 12 had posttraumatic scarring. Revision surgery was done in 11 of these 56 cases (8 patients with a previous external Toti procedure, and 3 patients with previous endonasal surgery). Altogether, 95% of the patients were symptom-free (86%) or felt improved (9%) postoperatively. Surgical revision was successful in 82%. Of patients with an “idiopathic” stenosis, 84% were healed and an additional 11% were improved. The success rate in the 12 patients with posttraumatic stenosis was 92%. Endoscopic duct surgery is a highly successful procedure with a low complication rate, the worst complication being persistence of symptoms.

scholarly journals Non endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy versus external dacryocystorhinostomy

1970 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 437-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
BR Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Direct Method ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction ◽  
Successful Outcome ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Endoscopic Endonasal ◽  
Duct Obstruction ◽  
Surgical Success ◽  
External Dacryocystorhinostomy

Aims and Objectives: To compare the success rates of non endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy and conventional external dacryocystorhinostomy for the surgical management of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Materials and methods: A retrospective, nonrandomized, comparative interventional case series of 302 patients who underwent either endonasal or external dacryocystorhinostomy over a period of 2 years. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon and patients with primary nasolacrimal duct obstruction with a minimum of 6 months post operative follow up were included in the study. While external dacryocystorhinostomy was performed using traditional technique, endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy was performed using direct method of nonendoscopic visualization. Results: Of the 302 cases included in the study 165 patients had endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy whereas 137 underwent external dacryocystorhinostomy. Success was defined by resolution of symptoms of tearing, a negative fluorescein dye disappearance test and patency of the canalicular system on lacrimal irrigation. In the external dacryocystorhinostomy group 124 (90.5%) patients had surgical success whereas 146 (88.5%) of the endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy patients had successful outcome. The overall success rate was 89.4%, and the difference of surgical success between the two groups was not statistically significant ( P=0.57). Conclusion: Non endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy gives surgical results comparable to those of external dacryocystorhinostomy and is a viable alternative where dacryocystorhinostomy is indicated for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Key words: Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy (ENDCR), External Dacryocystorhinostomy (EXDCR), Primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANLDO)   doi: 10.3126/kumj.v6i4.1731  Kathmandu University Medical Journal (2008), Vol. 6, No. 4, Issue 24, 437-442     

scholarly journals Outcomes and comparison of nasolacrimal probing for patients older than 12 months

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 251584142092713
Author(s):  
Kürsad Ramazan Zor ◽  
Erkut Küçük ◽  
Zeynep Yılmaz Öztorun
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct ◽  
Older Age ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction ◽  
Duct Obstruction ◽  
Initial Surgery ◽  
First Choice

Objective: In this study, we report the results of probing done in our clinic. We also want investigate role of late probing on outcome, especially in children older than 24 and 48 months. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated records of patients who underwent probing under general anaesthesia due to congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction between 2013 and 2017 in Nigde Ömer Halisdemir University Faculty of Medicine in Nigde, Turkey. Success rates of probing for different age groups were compared. Results: 143 eyes of 123 patients were included in the study. Overall success rate was 93.7% (134 eyes out of 143). We found the success rate as 95.5 in 12–18 months age group, 93.3% in 18–24 months age group, 93.8% in the 24–48 months age group, 86.6% in the 48 months and older age group. Overall success rate in 24 months and older age group was 91.5%. The second operation was performed on seven of the nine patients where the initial surgery failed, and successful results were achieved in six patients. Success rate was 100% after the second surgery in patients older than 48 months. Conclusion: The success rate of probing is high in patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction from 12 to 84 months. In patients with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction who are older than 48 months probing is effective and should be first-choice in this age group in management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Probing may be used even in older patients who had previous unsuccessful probing.

Success rates of endoscopic-assisted probing for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction in children

2013 ◽  
Vol 127 (8) ◽  
pp. 794-798 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Theodoropoulou ◽  
M S M Sutherland ◽  
K Haddow ◽  
A Blaikie
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction ◽  
Developmental Abnormality ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Congenital Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction ◽  
Duct Obstruction ◽  
Fluorescein Dye ◽  
Age Range ◽  
Test Result

AbstractObjective:To determine the success rate of initial probing in children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction at different ages, using nasal endoscopy.Methods:Fifty eyes of 38 consecutive children with congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction underwent endoscopic nasolacrimal duct probing under general anaesthesia. Patients were followed up for at least three months. Probing success was defined as complete remission of symptoms and a normal fluorescein dye disappearance test result.Results:The age range of patients was 17–109 months. The success rates of probing were: 100 per cent (29 out of 29) for cases of stenosis at the lower nasolacrimal duct, 100 per cent (7 out of 7) for functional epiphora cases and 92.86 per cent (13 out of 14) for nasolacrimal atresia cases. Overall, there was only one child for whom the probing treatment for nasolacrimal duct obstruction was not successful; this child had Down's syndrome and a more complex developmental abnormality of the nasolacrimal duct. Age and site of obstruction were not found to significantly affect the outcome of probing.Conclusion:Probing of the nasolacrimal system using an endoscopic approach allows direct visualisation of the nasolacrimal duct. This can facilitate diagnosis of the anomaly and significantly increase the procedure success rate.

scholarly journals Outcomes of external dacryocystorhinostomy and endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in the management of nasolacrimal duct obstruction

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Duwal ◽  
R Saiju
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction ◽  
Endoscopic Endonasal ◽  
Duct Obstruction ◽  
Dence Interval ◽  
External Dacryocystorhinostomy ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
External Dcr ◽  
Group 1

Introduction: Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is the treatment of choice for nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Although external DCR is regarded as the gold standard, endoscopic DCR is evolving as an equally-effective alternative. Objectives To compare the success rate of treating nasolacrimal duct obstruction by endoscopic endonasal method compared to the conventional DCR surgery.Materials and methods This prospective, comparative, non-randomised study was conducted in 2009 - 2010. Thirty consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic endonasal DCR (Group 1) and 30 consecutive patients undergoing external DCR (Group 2) between July 2009 and September 2010 at the oculoplasty unit of the Tilganga institute of ophthalmology were included in this study. A patent lacrimal passage on syringing and symptomatic improvement at six months after surgery was de¿ned as a successful outcome. The intraoperative and postoperative complications were also compared. Results Our study included 31 eyes of 30 patients in Group 1 and 34 eyes of 30 patients in Group 2. The success rate for endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy was 90.3 % (95 % con¿dence interval 80 - 100) and external dacryocystorhinostomy was 94.1 % (95 % con¿dence interval 80 - 100). The difference of surgical success among the two methods was not statistically significant (p = 0.7). The rate of intra-operative and post-operative complications was similar in the two methods (p = 0.5). Conclusion: The short term outcomes and complication rates of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy were similar.

scholarly journals Complications of revision spinal surgery

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt M. Eichholz ◽  
Timothy C. Ryken
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Spinal Surgery ◽  
Scar Tissue ◽  
Successful Outcome ◽  
Spinal Instability ◽  
Persistent Symptoms ◽  
Primary Surgery ◽  
Patient’S Outcome ◽  
Incidental Durotomy ◽  
Patients Experience

Surgical treatment for symptomatic cervical and lumbar spondylosis has become prevalent in recent years. With this increased intervention, increasing numbers of patients experience persistent symptoms and require revision spinal surgery. Although many aspects of the workup and operation are similar for both primary and revision surgery, there are special considerations that must be examined when determining if a patient is a candidate for revision surgery. Preoperative workup should include evaluation for spinal instability. Intraoperatively, scar tissue may complicate the procedure, and care must be taken to avoid incidental durotomy. The prognosis for a revision surgery can be predicted best by the patient's outcome after the primary surgery. As with any surgical procedure, patient selection is imperative for successful outcome.

scholarly journals Role of silicone stenting in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 248
Author(s):  
Abdussalam M. Jahan ◽  
Yousef M. Eldanfur ◽  
Abdulhakim B. Ghuzi
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction ◽  
P Value ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Duct Obstruction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Silicone Stent ◽  
Endoscopic Dcr

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is a surgical procedure performed to relief nasolacrimal duct obstruction, which involves the creation of ostium at the lacrimal bone to form a shunt in the nasolacrimal pathway. Closure of the rhinostomy opening was considered a major factor for surgical failure. Use of silicone stent in endoscopic DCR to improve the success rate of the operation have been tried by many surgeons. In this study we assess the success rates of endoscopic DCR with and without silicone stents.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Prospective study includes 30 patients were operated in the Department of ENT, Misrata Medical Center, from April 2017 to March 2018. They underwent endonasal endoscopic DCR for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction.<strong> </strong>These patients were randomly divided in two groups: A and B with 15 patients in each group. The group A patients underwent endoscopic DCR with silicone stent and group B patients underwent endoscopic DCR without stent. The results were statistically analyzed by chi-square test.  </p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> 30 patients were included in this study, their age ranged from 17 to 60 years, complaining of epiphora, 24 (80%) were females and 6 (20%) were males. The success rate was higher in patients with silicone stent (93.33%) as compared to patients without silicone stent (86.67%) but this difference in the results is not statistically significant (As p value is 0.542 which is &gt;0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Endoscopic DCR is safe, successful procedure for treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction and there was no significant difference in the success rates of performing endonasal DCR with silicone or without silicone stents.</p>

scholarly journals Evaluation and Comparison of the Outcomes of Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy with and without Silicone Stent

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-227
Author(s):  
Bipin Kishore Prasad ◽  
Krishna Kamal Ghosh
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct ◽  
Complete Relief ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy ◽  
Silicone Stent ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Sac Syringing

Introduction   Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy aims to establish a patent nasolacrimal fistula. Use of silicone stent is a preferred modification to achieve long term patency of neo-ostium, though it has been blamed for granulations, synechia and punctal erosion. Present study was done to  evaluate and compare the outcomes of Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without stent.  Materials and Methods 40 patients of with chronic dacryocystitis and nasolacrimal duct blockage were selected for the study. Nasal endoscopy was done for suitability of surgical access and to detect any nasal pathology. Sac syringing was done to assess the site of blockage and Dacryoscintigraphy to confirm it. 20 patients in Group A underwent Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy without stent and remaining 20 in Group B with silicone stent. Success rates were determined by subjective relief from epiphora and by endoscopic visualization of rhinostomy opening, granulation tissues/ synechiae at rhinostomy site and by result of sac syringing.  Results In Group A, complete relief was obtained in 75% patients, significant relief in 10% and no relief in 15% patients thus recording overall success rate of 85%; whereas in Group B complete relief of symptom was obtained in 70% patients, significant relief in 10% and no symptom relief in 20% patients thus recording the overall success rate of 80%. Cases in Group B were also found to have persistent epiphora (17.5%), stenosis of ostium (25%), granulation (35%) and synechia (37.5%).  Conclusion Stenting does not significantly improve the success of Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy but is associated with more complications.

Endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy vs nasolacrimal duct intubation in pediatric nasolacrimal duct obstruction - a comparative study

QJM ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 114 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rana Atia ◽  
Magda Samy ◽  
Sheriff Elwan ◽  
Thanaa Helmy ◽  
Ashraf Shaat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction ◽  
Endoscopic Endonasal ◽  
Duct Obstruction ◽  
Tube Removal ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Group B

Abstract Study design; Pilot randomized controlled study. Objective To compare success rates of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy and nasolacrimal duct intubation in congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) in a trial to define the superiority of either technique. Patients & Methods Sixty-six eyes of 61 patients were diagnosed as having epiphora and mucopurulent discharge due to congenital NLDO. The patients were randomly divided into two groups; Group A; 33 eyes of 28 patients (treated by probing and silicone intubation only (NLDI)) and Group B; 33 eyes of 33 patients (treated by endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy and silicone tube intubation (EDCR). All tubes were removed 6 months after the operation. Results The success rate, defined as complete resolution of clinical symptoms and signs after 6 months of follow up, was 72.7 % in Group A and 81.8% in Group B. Although the success rate was higher in Group B, yet the difference was shown to be statistically nonsignificant. Preoperative symptoms were assessed postoperatively after tube removal. Complete cure had a higher rate of occurrence in Group B than in Group A (27eyes (81.8%) versus 25 eyes of 22 patients (75.8%) respectively). Postoperative positive fluorescein dye disappearance test (FDDT) after tube removal was more in Group B than in Group A (27 eyes (81.8) versus 24 eyes of 21 patients (72.7 %) respectively). In Group A, silicone tubes had to be repositioned due to prolapse in 3 eyes of 3 patients (9.1%) and had to be removed early in 3 eyes of 3 patients (9.1%) due to failure of repositioning. In Group B, silicone tubes did not require early tube extraction before the date of removal in any of the patients. Intraoperative, there was only one case (3.0%) of fat prolapse during EDCR in Group B with no subsequent postoperative complications. Hemostasis did not represent a problem in any of the patients. Postoperative complications occurred more in Group B than Group A (21 eyes (63.6%) versus 13 eyes of 13 patients (39.4 %) respectively). Late complications occurred more in Group B than Group A (18 eyes (54.5%) versus 12 eyes of 12 patients (36.4%) respectively) in the form of persistent epiphora and tube prolapse. Conclusion The success rate of pediatric EDCR was higher than that of pediatric NLDI. The difference was statistically non-significant. Complications were comparable between the two groups. The study, being pilot in its comparative aspect between endoscopy and intubation, opens the horizon for further study on a larger group that probably will expand this difference.

Surgery of the Lacrimal System

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger A. Dailey ◽  
Mauricio R. Chavez
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Study ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Nasolacrimal Duct ◽  
The Other ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Lacrimal Sac ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
External Dcr

Obstruction of the tear outflow system can occur anywhere along its course from the tear lake to the inferior meatus of the nose. Surgical techniques designed to relieve this functional or complete obstruction have been available for a long time. Toti of Italy described the dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) procedure in 1908 as a treatment modality for obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct. His technique did not make use of mucosal flaps. Dupuy-Dutemps of France, on the other hand, encouraged the use of flaps. He recommended suturing together the nasal mucosal and lacrimal sac flaps. The success rate of the operation improved dramatically. Today the external DCR procedure makes use of modifications of both of these historically described procedures. In recent years, intranasal DCR has enjoyed renewed popularity. This procedure had been performed by Lester Jones and others for years but was dropped because the success rate was 80% at best. Although the use of endoscopic techniques and laser technology has been advocated by some authorities, the success rate (approximately 70%) with relatively short-term follow-up has limited its acceptance. More recently, Javate and associates reported a series of patients undergoing endoscopic DCR with the radiofrequency Ellman unit. Their reported success rate of 90% compared favorably with a 94% success rate in 50 age-matched patients undergoing external DCR with a follow-up of 9 months. This rate also compares favorably to the present authors’ success rate of approximately 95% in uncomplicated cases undergoing external DCR and a similar rate with the endoscopic approach without use of a laser. Therefore, the laser does not appear to offer any significant advantage over more traditional intranasal approaches, and the cost may actually be a financial disincentive to its use. The benefit of mitomycin continues to be debated. You and associates performed a prospective study showing favorable long-term success rates with the use of mitomycin. On the other hand, Liu and associates performed a prospective study that demonstrated no benefit. While the DCR works well for lacrimal sac or nasolacrimal duct obstruction, it does not address obstructions of the puncta and canaliculi.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document