Abstract
Background
The aim of study is to evaluate the Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) with conventional instruments, its results and advantage over external dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR).
Methods
The study group comprised of 127 patients who underwent consecutive endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. The cases operated by one team were included in the study to make the uniform analysis and its result. There were 48 males and 79 female in this study and male female ratio was 1:1.6. The mean age of the patient was 37 years (range from 16 years to 58 years). There were wide variety of cases like epiphora, lacrimal sac abscess, lacrimal sac fistula, acute dacryocystitis and road vehicular accident. All the patients had undergone non-laser, non-powered conventional instruments surgery under local anesthesia. The lighted probe was not used in any case for sac identification. The free flow of saline through newly created stoma during sac syringing was considered as successful criteria. The stent was used in two cases of road vehicular accident and in remaining 125 cases no stent was used. There were 66 cases of epiphora, 30 cases of lacrimal sac abscess, 26 cases of acute dacryocystitis, 3 cases of lacrimal fistula and 2 case of road traffic accident with multiple fractures. The average follow up period was 17 months (maximum follow up 3 years and minimum 4 months.)
Results
The success rate was 96 %.
Conclusion
The endoscopic DCR with conventional instruments is safe with very high success rate without any complications. It can be done in acute cases and very much suited for lacrimal sac abscess and lacrimal sac fistula.
Keywords: Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, DCR, Lacrimal sac area, Free flow of saline
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (640.6 KB).
References
- 1.Kupper D.S., Demarco R.C., Resende R., Anselmo-lima W.T., Valera F.C., Morib I. Endoscopic nasal dacryocystorhinostomy: results and advantage over external approach. Rev Bras otorinolaryngol. 2005;71(1):356–360. doi: 10.1016/S1808-8694(15)31335-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Durvasula V.S., Gatland D.J. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: long term results and evolution of surgical technique. J Laryngol Otol. 2004;118(80):628–632. doi: 10.1258/0022215041917835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wormald P.J., Tsibas A. Investigation and endoscopic treatment for functional and anatomical obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct system. Clinical Otolaryngology. 2004;29:352–356. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2273.2004.00836.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Fayet B., Racy E., Assouline M. Complications of standard endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with unciformectomy. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:837–845. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.08.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ben Simon G.J., Joseph J., Schwarcz R.M., McCann J.D., Goldberg R.A. External versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction in a tertiary referral center. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(8):1463–1468. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.03.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gupta A.K., Bansal S. Primary endoscopic dacryocystorhonostomy in children-Analysis of patients. Int J pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;70(7):1213–1217. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.12.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kriukov AL, Davydov DV, Kravchenko AV, (2005) Domestic 1.44 mcm Nd:Yag laser in combined treatment of dacryocystitis complicated by abscess formation.Vestn Otorinolaringol (6):14–17 [PubMed]
- 8.Tsrbas A., Davis G., Wormald P.J. Mechanical endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy versus external dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;20(1):5006. doi: 10.1097/01.IOP.0000103006.49679.23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mathew M.R., McGuiness R., Webb L.A., Murry S.B., Esakowitz L. Patient satisfaction in our initial experience with endonasal endoscopic non-laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Orbit. 2004;23(2):77–85. doi: 10.1080/01676830490501415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]