SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ENT Updates / 2014 / Cilt: 4 Sayı: 3

Comparison of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) versus endocanalicular diode laser DCR for the treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Nazolakrimal kanal obstrüksiyonunun tedavisinde endonazal dakriyosistorinostomi (DSR) ve endokanaliküler diyot lazer DSR'nin karşılaştırması

Mustafa Acar
Fatih Gören
Demet Yazıcı
Güven Yıldırım
Turhan San
Pages
87–93
Publication Date
2014-09-01
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)

Bleeding and pain were observed significantly more frequently in Group 1 and the patient comfort was significantly better in Group 2 (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR), the treatment for nasolacrimal duct obstruction, is generally performed endonasally.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this retrospective study, we compared the anatomical and functional success rate of endonasal DCR with endocanalicular diode laser DCR.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Bleeding and pain were observed significantly more frequently in Group 1 and the patient comfort was significantly better in Group 2 (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Komplikasyon · dakriyosistorinostomi · diyot lazeri

Abstract

Objective: Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR), the treatment for nasolacrimal duct obstruction, is generally performed endonasally. In this retrospective study, we compared the anatomical and functional success rate of endonasal DCR with endocanalicular diode laser DCR. Methods: Medical records of 53 patients in endonasal DCR group (Group 1) and 47 in endocanalicular diode laser DCR group (Group 2) were analyzed for preoperative syringing and probing evaluations as well as surgical details, outcomes and complications. Results: Recurrence was observed in eight patients in Group 1 and six in Group 2. Although the recurrence rates differed between the two groups, this difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05). The complications in Group 1 included eight cases of synechia and one tube protrusion, whereas the complications in Group 2 included two cases of synechia, two tube protrusions and two punctum atrophies. The presence of allergy, concha hypertrophy and septum deviation did not significantly increase the rates of recurrence or complications (p>0.05). Bleeding and pain were observed significantly more frequently in Group 1 and the patient comfort was significantly better in Group 2 (p

Özet

Amaç: Nazolakrimal kanal obstrüksiyonunun tedavisi olarak dakriyosistorinostomi (DSR) genellikle endonazal yoldan gerçekleştirilmektedir. Bu retrospektif çalışmada endonazal DSR ile endokanaliküler diyot lazer DSR'nin anatomik ve fonksiyonel başarı oranlarını karşılaştırdık. Yöntem: Endonazal DSR grubunda 53 (Grup 1) ve endokanaliküler diyot lazer grubunda (Grup 2) 47 hastanın tıbbi kayıtları preoperatif enjeksiyon ve prob uygulamaları, cerrahi ayrıntılar, sonuçlar ve komplikasyonların değerlendirmesi açısından incelendi. Bulgular: Grup 1'de 8 ve Grup 2'de 6 hastada nüks gözlemlendi. İki grup arasında nüks oranları farklılık göstermesine karşın bu farklılık istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı değildi (p>0.05). Grup 1'deki komplikasyonlar 8 sineşi ve 1 tüp protrüzyonu, Grup 2'de ise 2 sineşi, 2 tüp protrüzyonu ve 2 punktal atrofi olgusunu içermekteydi. Alerji, konka hipertrofisi ve septum deviasyonu nüks ve komplikasyon oranlarını anlamlı derecede artırmamıştı (p>0.05). Grup 1'de kanama ve ağrı anlamlı derecede daha sık gözlenmiş olmasına rağmen Grup 2'de hasta konforu anlamlı derecede daha iyi idi (p

🔖

Cite This Article

Acar, M., Gören, F., Yazıcı, D., Yıldırım, G., San, T. (2014). Comparison of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) versus endocanalicular diode laser DCR for the treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. ENT Updates, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 3, 87–93. https://ajindex.com/articles/986788

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Yang JW, Oh HN. Success rate and complications of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with unciformectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2012;250:1509–13. Preechawai P. Results of non endoscopic endonasal dacryocys- torhinostomy. Clin Ophthalmol 2012;6: 1297–301.
  2. Cakmak SS, Yildirim M. Use of endocanalicular dacryocystorhi- nostomy with multidiode laser in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2010;74:1320–2.
  3. Plaza G, Beteré F, Nogueira A. Transcanalicular dacryocysto rhi- nostomy with diode laser: long-term results. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;23:179–82.
  4. Mirza S, Jones N. Laser-assisted dacryocystorhinostomy. In: Weber RK, Keerl R, Schaefer SD, editors. Atlas of lacrimal sur- gery. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag: 2007. p. 73–85.
  5. Piaton JM, Keller P, Limon S, Quenot S. First line endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy technique and results. Comparison between diode laser and electrocautery instrument. Study based on 422 procedures. [Article in French] J Fr Ophtalmol 2002;25: 135–45.
  6. Eloy P, Leruth E, Cailliau A, Collet S, Bertrand B, Rombaux P. Pediatric endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2009;73:867–71.
  7. Watkins LM, Janfaza P, Rubin PA. The evolution of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Surv Ophthalmol 2003;48:73–84.
  8. Fayet B, Racy E, Assouline M. Complications of standardized endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with unciformectomy. Ophthalmology 2004;111:837–45.
  9. Hartikainen J, Antila J, Varpula M, Puukka P, Seppä H, Grénman R. Prospective randomised comparison of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhionstomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 1998;108:1861–6.
  10. Boush GA, Lemke BN, Dortzbach RK. Results of endonasal laser- assisted dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology 1994;101:955–9.
  11. Hausler R, Caversaccio M. Microsurgical endonasaldacryocys- torhinostomy with long-term insertion of bicanalicular silicone tubes. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:188–91.
  12. Athanasiov PA, Prabhakaran VC, Mannor G, Woog JJ, Selva D. Transcanalicular approach to adult lacrimal duct obstruction: a review of instruments and methods. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2009;40:149–59.
  13. Narioka J, Ohashi Y. Dacryocystography with nasolacrimal prob- ing under fluoroscopic guidance for treatment of congenital dacryocystocele. J AAPOS 2008;12:299–301.
  14. MacEwen CJ, Young JDH. Epiphora during the first year of life. Eye 1991;5:596–600.
  15. Petersen RA, Robb RM. The natural course of congenital obstruction of the nasolacrimal duct. J Pediatr Ophthalm