Y Cokkeser1, C Evereklioglu, H Er. 1. Department of ENT, Inönü University, Faculty of Medicine, Turgut Ozal Medical Center.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epiphora is an annoying symptom, embarrassing the patient both socially and functionally. The two widely accepted treatment modalities of epiphora resulting from obstruction of the nasolacrimal ductus are external and endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the results, operative time, and complications of external and videoendoscopic endonasal DCR performed between December 1994 and December 1998. METHODS: In group 1, conventional primary external DCR with or without silicone tube intubation was performed in 79 patients (66 women and 13 men) with unilateral dacryocystitis. In group 2, endoscopic primary endonasal DCR with hammer-chisel removal of bone located over the lacrimal sac was performed in 51 eyes of 36 patients, 33 women and 3 men (15 bilateral procedures). RESULTS: The follow-up period was 6 to 48 months (mean 25 months) after surgery. The age range was from 4 to 76 years (mean 38.5 years). The success rates of external and endoscopic hammer-chisel DCR were found to be 89.8% and 88.2%, respectively. A lower complication rate was observed in the endoscopic group, with minimal morbidity and shorter operative time compared with the external approach. CONCLUSIONS: Hammer-chisel endoscopic DCR is practical, less traumatic, less time-consuming, and cosmetically more convenient than the external approach. The success rate of the endoscopic DCR procedure is comparable with that of traditional external DCR, and it also allows simultaneous correction of any intranasal pathology.
BACKGROUND: Epiphora is an annoying symptom, embarrassing the patient both socially and functionally. The two widely accepted treatment modalities of epiphora resulting from obstruction of the nasolacrimal ductus are external and endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the results, operative time, and complications of external and videoendoscopic endonasal DCR performed between December 1994 and December 1998. METHODS: In group 1, conventional primary external DCR with or without silicone tube intubation was performed in 79 patients (66 women and 13 men) with unilateral dacryocystitis. In group 2, endoscopic primary endonasal DCR with hammer-chisel removal of bone located over the lacrimal sac was performed in 51 eyes of 36 patients, 33 women and 3 men (15 bilateral procedures). RESULTS: The follow-up period was 6 to 48 months (mean 25 months) after surgery. The age range was from 4 to 76 years (mean 38.5 years). The success rates of external and endoscopic hammer-chisel DCR were found to be 89.8% and 88.2%, respectively. A lower complication rate was observed in the endoscopic group, with minimal morbidity and shorter operative time compared with the external approach. CONCLUSIONS: Hammer-chisel endoscopic DCR is practical, less traumatic, less time-consuming, and cosmetically more convenient than the external approach. The success rate of the endoscopic DCR procedure is comparable with that of traditional external DCR, and it also allows simultaneous correction of any intranasal pathology.