CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic intranasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) has the following advantages over external surgery: pain and hemorrhage are minimal; postoperative facial swelling and scarring are absent; and symptoms resolve rapidly after surgery. Furthermore, as no significant differences in postoperative results were apparent between external and endoscopic intranasal DCR, and because no facial skin incision is required, the clinical usefulness of endoscopic intranasal DCR is high. OBJECTIVES: In the treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction or chronic dacryocystitis in which epiphora or ocular discharge are chief complaints, endoscopic intranasal DCR is a safe, easy, minimally invasive, and reliable approach. In the present study, we describe the surgical procedures, techniques, and results of endoscopic intranasal DCR, and investigate its clinical usefulness. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The subjects were 21 patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction who underwent a total of 24 endoscopic intranasal DCR procedures. Etiologies of the obstruction were, respectively, cryptogenic (62.5%), secondary to partial maxillectomy (16.7%), complication of sinus surgery (12.5%), and due to underlying disease--Wegener's granulomatosis (4.2%) or nasal T-cell lymphoma (4.2%). To assess the clinical usefulness of this procedure, postoperative courses were assessed by reviewing medical records and conducting telephone interviews. In addition, to assess the therapeutic effects, postoperative results were statistically compared to those of external DCR. RESULTS: Closure of the surgical opening was seen in two cases (8.3%). In both cases, after the closed region was opened using an endoscopic procedure, symptoms resolved. Finally, lacrimal passage obstruction was not observed by lacrimal irrigation in any patient. None of the patients in the present study experienced major complications during or after surgery, and since their symptoms improved, the degree of satisfaction was high. When compared to external DCR, endoscopic intranasal DCR showed no statistically significant difference in postoperative results, thus confirming that similar therapeutic effects could be obtained for the two procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic intranasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) has the following advantages over external surgery: pain and hemorrhage are minimal; postoperative facial swelling and scarring are absent; and symptoms resolve rapidly after surgery. Furthermore, as no significant differences in postoperative results were apparent between external and endoscopic intranasal DCR, and because no facial skin incision is required, the clinical usefulness of endoscopic intranasal DCR is high. OBJECTIVES: In the treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction or chronic dacryocystitis in which epiphora or ocular discharge are chief complaints, endoscopic intranasal DCR is a safe, easy, minimally invasive, and reliable approach. In the present study, we describe the surgical procedures, techniques, and results of endoscopic intranasal DCR, and investigate its clinical usefulness. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The subjects were 21 patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction who underwent a total of 24 endoscopic intranasal DCR procedures. Etiologies of the obstruction were, respectively, cryptogenic (62.5%), secondary to partial maxillectomy (16.7%), complication of sinus surgery (12.5%), and due to underlying disease--Wegener's granulomatosis (4.2%) or nasal T-cell lymphoma (4.2%). To assess the clinical usefulness of this procedure, postoperative courses were assessed by reviewing medical records and conducting telephone interviews. In addition, to assess the therapeutic effects, postoperative results were statistically compared to those of external DCR. RESULTS: Closure of the surgical opening was seen in two cases (8.3%). In both cases, after the closed region was opened using an endoscopic procedure, symptoms resolved. Finally, lacrimal passage obstruction was not observed by lacrimal irrigation in any patient. None of the patients in the present study experienced major complications during or after surgery, and since their symptoms improved, the degree of satisfaction was high. When compared to external DCR, endoscopic intranasal DCR showed no statistically significant difference in postoperative results, thus confirming that similar therapeutic effects could be obtained for the two procedures.
Authors: Alfonso Luca Pendolino; Samit Unadkat; Henry Zhang; Monica Pendolino; Gerolamo Bianchi; Premjit S Randhawa; Peter J Andrews Journal: SAGE Open Med Date: 2020-07-01