Journals / Medeniyet Medical Journal / 2016 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: Comparison of the effectiveness of using sickle knife-micro osteotome and monopolar cautery-Kerrison punch

Endoskopik dakriyosistorinostomi: Orak bıçak-mikroosteotom ve monopolar koter-Kerrison punch kullanım etkinliğinin karşılaştırılması

Pages
250–255
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Complication rate was higher in Group 2 where cauterization was used, and however success rates were similar (p=0.0174), (p=0.281).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:As a result of congenital or acquired obstructions and functional disorders of the nasolacrimal system, epiphorea and recurrent dacryocystitis will occur.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We retrospectively evaluated 29 patients and 34 surgeries.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Complication rate was higher in Group 2 where cauterization was used, and however success rates were similar (p=0.0174), (p=0.281).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

As a result of congenital or acquired obstructions and functional disorders of the nasolacrimal system, epiphorea and recurrent dacryocystitis will occur. Dacryocystorhinostomy can be performed for obstructions of the lacrimal sac, and nasolacrimal ductus refractory to medical treatments. Several approaches have been defined such as external, endoscopic approaches, and combinations of these approaches with laser and nasolacrimal stenting. It is still not clear which surgical methods will be used in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. In our study, in cases which underwent endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and nasolacrimal stenting, the effectiveness of using monopolar cautery or sickle knife and osteotome or Kerrison punch was compared. We retrospectively evaluated 29 patients and 34 surgeries. Patients were divided into two groups as Group 1 which used sickle knife, osteotome and hammer, and Group 2 which used monopolar cautery and Kerrison punch. Patients were controlled postoperatively at 1st week, 2nd week, 1st month, 2nd month, 3rd month, and afterwards at 3 month intervals. They were followed up for 3 to 18 months. Reasons for complications and failure were evaluated. Fisher’s exact test was used in statistical analysis. In the postoperative follow up in one patient a synechiae, in two patients development of granulation tissue were detected in Groups 1. and 2, respectively. In addition, a synechiae accompanying membranous closure (n=1), or development of granulation tissue (n=1), isolated case of synechiae (n=1), and canalicular erosions (n=2) were detected. Complication rate was higher in Group 2 where cauterization was used, and however success rates were similar (p=0.0174), (p=0.281).

Özet

Nazolakrimal sistemde konjenital veya kazanılmış olarak oluşan tıkanıklıklar ve fonksiyonel bozukluklar sonucunda epifora ve dakriyosistit atakları oluşacaktır. Kese ve nazolakrimal kanaldaki tıkanıklıklarda medikal tedavilere yanıt alınamadığında dakriyosistorinostomi ameliyatı yapılabilir. Cerrahi olarak eksternal ve endoskopik yaklaşımlar ve bu yaklaşımların gözyaşı kanalları entübasyonu ve lazerle kombinasyonları tanımlanmıştır. Endoskopik dakriyosistorinostomi ameliyatlarında ise hangi cerrahi yöntemin kullanılacağı halen kesinlik kazanmamıştır. Çalışmamızda, endoskopik dakriyosistorinostomi ve silikon tüp uygulaması yaptığımız hastalarda monopolar koter veya orak bıçak, osteotom veya Kerrison punch kullanımının etkinliği karşılaştırıldı. Retrospektif olarak 29 hasta ve 34 operasyon değerlendirildi. Hastalar cerrahi sırasında orak bıçak, osteotom ve çekiç kullanılanlar ile monopolar koter ve Kerrison punch kullanılanlar olarak iki gruba ayrıldı. Hastalar postoperatif 1. hafta, 2. hafta, 1. ay, 2. ay, 3. ay ve sonrasında üçer ay aralıklarla kontrollere çağrıldı. Hastalar 3 ay ile 18 ay arasında takip edildi. Hastalarda ortaya çıkan komplikasyonlar ve başarısızlık nedenleri değerlendirildi. İstatistiksel değerlendirmede Fisher exact testi kullanıldı. Postoperatif takiplerde birinci grupta bir hastada orta konka ile lateral nazal duvar arasında sineşi, iki hastada granülasyon dokusu gelişimi tespit edildi. İkinci grupta bir hastada orta konka ile lateral nazal duvar arasında sineşi ve beraberinde membranöz kapanma, bir hastada orta konka ile lateral nazal duvar arasında sineşi ve beraberinde granülasyon dokusu gelişimi, bir hastada yalnızca sineşi ve iki hastada da tüp gerginliğine bağlı punktum ve kanalikülde erozyon tespit edildi. İki grup arasında komplikasyonlar ve başarı oranları değerlendirildiğinde koter kullanılan grupta komplikasyonlar anlamlı olarak fazla görüldü, başarı oranları arasında ise anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p=0,0174), (p=0,281).

🔖

Cite This Article

YASLIKAYA, S. (2016). Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: Comparison of the effectiveness of using sickle knife-micro osteotome and monopolar cautery-Kerrison punch. Medeniyet Medical Journal, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4, 250–255. https://ajindex.com/articles/283367

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Burkat CN, Wei LA. Anatomy of the lacrimal system. In: The lacrimal system: diagnosis, management and surgery. Cohen AJ, Mercandetti M, Brazzo B (eds). 2nd edition. Springer international publishing, Switzerland, 2015: 1-14.
  2. Schaefer DP. Acquired etiologies of lacrimal system obstructions.In: The lacrimal system: diagnosis, management and surgery. Cohen AJ, Mercandetti M, Brazzo B (eds). 2nd edition. Springer international publishing, Switzerland, 2015: 43-68.
  3. Liberman SM, Casiano RR. Is an endoscopic approach superior to external dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal obstruction. Laryngoscope 2015;125:2-4.
  4. Pal VK, Agrawal A, Suman S, et al. Transcanalicular endoscope combined laser-assisted dacryocystorhinostomy. Oman J Ophthalmol 2013;6:99-102.
  5. Longari F, Dehgani Mobaraki P, Ricci AL, et al. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation: 4 years retrospective study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;273:2079-84.
  6. Leong SC, Macewen CJ, White PS. A systematic review of outcomes after dacryocystorhinostomy in adults. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010;24:81-90.
  7. Steele TO, Wilson M, Strong B. Ultrasonic bone aspirator assisted endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Otolaryngol 2016;37:202-6.
  8. Kim SY, Paik JS, Jung SK, et al. No thermal tool using methods in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: no cautery, no drill, no illuminator, no more tears. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:2677-82.
  9. Taşkıran Çömez A, Karadağ O, Arıkan S, et al. Comparison of transcanalicular diode laser dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy in patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Lasers Surg Med 2014;46:275-80.
  10. Zengin MÖ, Eren E. The return of the jedi: comparison of the outcomes of endolaser dacryocystorhinostomy and endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2014;4:480-3.
  11. Badilla J, Dolman PJ. Cerebrospinal fluid leaks complicating orbital or oculoplastic surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:1631-4.
  12. Penttilä E, Smirnov G, Tuomilehto H, et al. E