PURPOSE: Comparison of surgical times for dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) by three different approaches: (1) external, (2) endoscopic endonasal surgical (EES), and (3) endoscopic endonasal laser (EEL) using the holmium:YAG laser. The merits and limitations of each approach are considered and surgical throughput predicted. METHODS: Prospective study of adult patients undergoing primary DCR surgery for nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Surgical times were recorded. Subjective and objective outcomes were assessed at a minimum of 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients undergoing 51 DCR procedures were studied. The mean surgical time for primary external (n=20), EES-DCR (n=16), and EEL-DCR (n=15) was 41.1+/-10.3, 39.6+/-13.8, and 20.9+/-7.8 min, with symptomatic success achieved in 95, 88, and 60%, respectively. Follow-up was 6-36 months, mean 8 months. It was calculated that if six EEL-DCR, four EES-DCR, or three external DCRs are performed per list for 45 lists per annum, this equals a total of 270 EEL-DCR, 180 EES-DCR, and 135 external DCRs. Of these, 108 EEL-DCR, 22 EES-DCR, and seven external DCRs will fail. If 75% of these have redo surgery using the same technique, an extra 13.5 (EEL-DCR), four (EES-DCR), and two (external DCR) lists are needed. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the time taken to do EES-DCR compared to external DCR, and their clinical outcomes. Only EEL-DCR was significantly faster (P<0.001). However, its lower success rate negates the apparent benefit from the greater surgical throughput.
PURPOSE: Comparison of surgical times for dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) by three different approaches: (1) external, (2) endoscopic endonasal surgical (EES), and (3) endoscopic endonasal laser (EEL) using the holmium:YAG laser. The merits and limitations of each approach are considered and surgical throughput predicted. METHODS: Prospective study of adult patients undergoing primary DCR surgery for nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Surgical times were recorded. Subjective and objective outcomes were assessed at a minimum of 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients undergoing 51 DCR procedures were studied. The mean surgical time for primary external (n=20), EES-DCR (n=16), and EEL-DCR (n=15) was 41.1+/-10.3, 39.6+/-13.8, and 20.9+/-7.8 min, with symptomatic success achieved in 95, 88, and 60%, respectively. Follow-up was 6-36 months, mean 8 months. It was calculated that if six EEL-DCR, four EES-DCR, or three external DCRs are performed per list for 45 lists per annum, this equals a total of 270 EEL-DCR, 180 EES-DCR, and 135 external DCRs. Of these, 108 EEL-DCR, 22 EES-DCR, and seven external DCRs will fail. If 75% of these have redo surgery using the same technique, an extra 13.5 (EEL-DCR), four (EES-DCR), and two (external DCR) lists are needed. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the time taken to do EES-DCR compared to external DCR, and their clinical outcomes. Only EEL-DCR was significantly faster (P<0.001). However, its lower success rate negates the apparent benefit from the greater surgical throughput.