Literature DB >> 23120640

Endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: our experience.

D Deviprasad1, S G Mahesh, K Pujary, S Pillai, S A Mallick, V Jain.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To study the outcome of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) with or without mucosal flap preservation, without mitomycin local application, silicon tube stenting or laser assistance. To determine the duration of the surgical procedure of DCR, influence of simultaneously performed endonasal endoscopic procedures for concomitant sinonasal diseases.
METHODS: Combined retrospective and prospective study in our tertiary referral center. 24 patients with chronic dacryocystitis underwent 25 standard endonasal endoscopic DCR procedures, 10 with and 15 without mucosal flap preservation. 6 of these had concomitant sinonasal diseases for which they underwent septoplasty or functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) or both, simultaneously or as staged procedures. Relief from epiphora and patency of the nasolacrimal fistula was assessed by nasal endoscopy and syringing of the lacrimal apparatus at 1 week, 3 weeks and 3 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Out of 18 patients who underwent only DCR, 17 patients (94.44%) had complete relief from epiphora. Out of 6 patients who underwent 7 DCRs with concomitant sinonasal surgery, 5 patients (85.71%) had complete relief from epiphora. Overall 23 out of 25 DCRs (92%) had complete relief. In 15 of the 25 procedures, mucosal flap was excised completely. In remaining 10 procedures, flap was trimmed, repositioned to cover exposed bone around the newly created nasolacrimal fistula. In either situation, only one patient each had partial block of the nasolacrimal fistula. Average duration of the surgical procedure of DCR was 18 min.
CONCLUSION: Endonasal endoscopic DCR is a viable alternative to external DCR, co-existing sinonasal diseases can be managed simultaneously, as may be required in 25% of cases. It can be performed under 20 min without mucosal flap preservation, mitomycin local application, silicon tube stenting or laser assistance and can still provide a good success rate (92%) with less complications.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DCR; Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy; Epiphora; Mucosal flap

Year:  2009        PMID: 23120640      PMCID: PMC3449975          DOI: 10.1007/s12070-009-0071-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 2231-3796


  8 in total

1.  Topical application of mitomycin-C in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.

Authors:  Y K Selig; B S Biesman; E E Rebeiz
Journal:  Am J Rhinol       Date:  2000 May-Jun

2.  The endoscopic approach for revision dacryocystorhinostomy.

Authors:  R Metson
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: surgical technique and results.

Authors:  M B Sprekelsen; M T Barberán
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  Endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy in children.

Authors:  M J Cunningham; J J Woog
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1998-03

5.  Outcomes after endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy without mucosal flap preservation.

Authors:  Vijay R Ramakrishnan; Eric M Hink; Vikram D Durairaj; Todd T Kingdom
Journal:  Am J Rhinol       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec

6.  Endoscopic endonasal laser versus endonasal surgical dacryocystorhinostomy for epiphora due to nasolacrimal duct obstruction: prospective, randomised, controlled trial.

Authors:  S Maini; N Raghava; R Youngs; K Evans; S Trivedi; C Foy; G Mackintosh
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  2007-06-29       Impact factor: 1.469

7.  Prospective randomized comparison of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy.

Authors:  J Hartikainen; J Antila; M Varpula; P Puukka; H Seppä; R Grénman
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Silicone tubing is not necessary after primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Grigori Smirnov; Henri Tuomilehto; Markku Teräsvirta; Juhani Nuutinen; Juha Seppä
Journal:  Am J Rhinol       Date:  2008 Mar-Apr
  8 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  External vs. endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: has the current view changed?

Authors:  G Savino; R Battendieri; S Traina; G Corbo; G D'Amico; M Gari; E Scarano; G Paludetti
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.124

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.