Literature DB >> 23672972

Randomized trial on silicone intubation in endoscopic mechanical dacryocystorhinostomy (SEND) for primary nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Kelvin K L Chong1, Frank H P Lai, Mary Ho, Abbie Luk, Ben W Wong, Alvin Young.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To study the effect of bicanalicular silicone intubation on endonasal endoscopic mechanical dacryocystorhinostomy (EEM-DCR) for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO).
DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 120 consecutive adults (103 females) with a presenting age of 64 ± 13.7 years (range, 39-92 years) underwent EEM-DCR for PANDO from November 2005 to May 2009 in a lacrimal referral center.
METHODS: The EEM-DCR was performed by 2 lacrimal surgeons using standard techniques. Patients were randomly assigned to receive or not receive bicanalicular silicone intubation for 8 weeks. No antimetabolite was used. All patients received a course of oral antibiotics during nonabsorbable nasal packing for flaps tamponade, which was removed at the first postoperative visit. Patients were assessed at 1, 3, 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after the operation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgical success was defined by symptomatic relief of epiphora, reestablishment of nasolacrimal drainage confirmed by irrigation by 1 masked observer, and positive functional endoscopic dye test by the operative surgeon at 12 months postoperatively. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 118 of the 120 randomized cases completed 12 months of follow-up. Two patients died of unrelated medical illnesses during follow-up. At 12 months postoperatively, there was no statistical difference in the success rate between patients with (96.3%) and without (95.3%) intubation (P=0.79). The odds ratio of failure without silicone intubation was 1.28 (95% confidence interval, 0.21-7.95). There was no difference in the incidence (P=0.97) or the time to develop (P=0.12) granulation tissue between the 2 groups. No significant difference was found between successful and failed cases in terms of age (P=0.21), sex (P=0.37), laterality (P=0.46), mode of anesthesia (P=0.14), surgeon (P=0.26), use of stent (P=0.79), or presence of granulation tissue postoperatively (P=0.39).
CONCLUSIONS: The current study design provided 90% statistical power to detect more than 21% difference in surgical outcome, and no such difference was found whether intubation was used or not used in EEM-DCR for PANDO at the 12-month follow-up. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23672972     DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmology        ISSN: 0161-6420            Impact factor:   12.079


  18 in total

1.  Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with and without stenting.

Authors:  M I Syed; J Hendry; A J Cain; A T Williams
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 1.891

2.  Outcomes of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy after maxillectomy in patients with paranasal sinus and skull base tumors.

Authors:  Sara Abu-Ghanem; Ran Ben-Cnaan; Igal Leibovitch; Gilad Horowitz; Gadi Fishman; Dan M Fliss; Avraham Abergel
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-09-20       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Revision Surgery After Dacryocystorhinostomy in a National Cohort.

Authors:  Kian Eftekhari; Elliot D Kozin; Brian L VanderBeek
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 7.389

4.  Factors influencing endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy outcome.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Nomura; Kazuya Arakawa; Mitsuru Sugawara; Hiroshi Hidaka; Jun Suzuki; Yukio Katori
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  A simple and efficient technique for suturing and knotting during endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.

Authors:  Rongxin Chen; Shu Liu; Aixin Jiang; Aizezi Wumaier; Yuanxia Yang; Xinyue Yu; Ziwei Meng; Yuxiang Mao; Xuanwei Liang
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 2.029

6.  Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation: 4 years retrospective study.

Authors:  F Longari; P Dehgani Mobaraki; A L Ricci; R Lapenna; C Cagini; G Ricci
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  Comparison of the extrusion rate of Crawford tubes.

Authors:  Kira L Segal; Sarah H Van Tassel; Charles Kim; Nicole Hsu; Ashutosh Kacker; Gary J Lelli
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 1.779

Review 8.  [Treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction from the otorhinolaryngologist's perspective].

Authors:  C Ginzkey; R Mlynski
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.284

9.  Comparative Study of Recessive Spherical Headed Silicone Intubation and Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy under Nasal Endoscopy for Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction.

Authors:  Hui-Yi Deng; Tao Wang; Xue-Kun Huang; Qin-Tai Yang; Shi-Qi Ling; Wei-Hao Wang; Mei-Jiao Li; Fang-Qin Ning; Ge-Hua Zhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Surgical Outcomes of Canalicular Trephination Combined with Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy in Patients with Distal or Common Canalicular Obstruction.

Authors:  Yoon Jin Kong; Hye Sun Choi; Jae Woo Jang; Sung Joo Kim; Sun Young Jang
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-09-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.