Rachel K Sobel1, Vinay K Aakalu2, Edward J Wladis3, Jurij R Bilyk4, Michael T Yen5, Louise A Mawn1. 1. Vanderbilt Eye Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 2. Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Lions Eye Institute, Albany, New York. 4. Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) compared with external DCR. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the PubMed database in March 2016 and updated in October 2017 and February 2019. The search strategy was designed to update the first Ophthalmic Technology Assessment on endonasal DCR from 2001 by identifying new peer-reviewed human studies reported since 2000 in the English language that compare results of endonasal DCR with those of external DCR. The searches yielded 169 articles. Of these, 13 met the inclusion criteria and were assigned a level of evidence rating. RESULTS: Six of the 13 studies included in this assessment were rated level II and 7 were rated level III. Three of the 13 studies drew conclusions based on statistically significant results, but all of these were level III evidence. Two of these significant studies demonstrated lesser efficacy of endonasal laser DCR (63%-64%) compared with external DCR (94%; P = 0.0002, 0.024). The third study reported that nonlaser endonasal DCR was superior to external DCR (84% vs. 70%; P = 0.03). The remainder of the studies did not find statistically significant differences in success rates between the 2 techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Limited data suggest that laser endonasal DCR may be less effective than external DCR. Existing data are inadequate to draw conclusions about whether endonasal DCR is superior to, equivalent to, or inferior to the gold standard external DCR.
PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) compared with external DCR. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the PubMed database in March 2016 and updated in October 2017 and February 2019. The search strategy was designed to update the first Ophthalmic Technology Assessment on endonasal DCR from 2001 by identifying new peer-reviewed human studies reported since 2000 in the English language that compare results of endonasal DCR with those of external DCR. The searches yielded 169 articles. Of these, 13 met the inclusion criteria and were assigned a level of evidence rating. RESULTS: Six of the 13 studies included in this assessment were rated level II and 7 were rated level III. Three of the 13 studies drew conclusions based on statistically significant results, but all of these were level III evidence. Two of these significant studies demonstrated lesser efficacy of endonasal laser DCR (63%-64%) compared with external DCR (94%; P = 0.0002, 0.024). The third study reported that nonlaser endonasal DCR was superior to external DCR (84% vs. 70%; P = 0.03). The remainder of the studies did not find statistically significant differences in success rates between the 2 techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Limited data suggest that laser endonasal DCR may be less effective than external DCR. Existing data are inadequate to draw conclusions about whether endonasal DCR is superior to, equivalent to, or inferior to the gold standard external DCR.