Vinod Gauba1. 1. Imperial Healthcare Institute, Dubai Healthcare City, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the duration of surgery, outcomes, adverse events and success rates of external versus endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) surgery in a specialized lacrimal surgery center. METHODS: Prospective, interventional case series. Standard external DCR technique was performed. Mechanical endonasal DCR was performed with enlargement of the ostium and full length opening of the lacrimal sac. Surgical time, duration of intubation, incidence of hemorrhage, infection, wound dehiscence; follow-up duration and functional success at the end of follow up were recorded. RESULTS: Functional success and symptomatic relief were equivalent in both procedures. Endonasal DCR surgery was found to be quicker to perform than external DCR surgery. The follow-up duration was comparable in both groups (mean 9 months). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the endonasal DCR group (9.3 versus 8.6). CONCLUSION: Endonasal DCR surgery offers a very attractive alternative to the well established technique of external DCR surgery for the treatment of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction with equivalent success rates, shorter surgical time and higher patient satisfaction.
PURPOSE: To study the duration of surgery, outcomes, adverse events and success rates of external versus endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) surgery in a specialized lacrimal surgery center. METHODS: Prospective, interventional case series. Standard external DCR technique was performed. Mechanical endonasal DCR was performed with enlargement of the ostium and full length opening of the lacrimal sac. Surgical time, duration of intubation, incidence of hemorrhage, infection, wound dehiscence; follow-up duration and functional success at the end of follow up were recorded. RESULTS: Functional success and symptomatic relief were equivalent in both procedures. Endonasal DCR surgery was found to be quicker to perform than external DCR surgery. The follow-up duration was comparable in both groups (mean 9 months). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the endonasal DCR group (9.3 versus 8.6). CONCLUSION: Endonasal DCR surgery offers a very attractive alternative to the well established technique of external DCR surgery for the treatment of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction with equivalent success rates, shorter surgical time and higher patient satisfaction.