KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Annals of Medical Research / 2021 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of endoscopic and externaldacryocystorhinostomy in terms of operation success andpatient satisfaction; A prospective study

Esra VURAL
Erdem ERİS
Ali Rıza Cenk ÇELEBİ
Sinan BEKMEZ
Hatun NURÇİN
İrfan PERENTE
Zengibar ÖZARSLAN
Sayfa
816–820
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The time ittakes patients to return to daily routine was 12.4 ± 2.71 days in external-DCR and, 5.10 ± 0.99 days in endonasal-DCR (p

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: To compare the results of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (endonasal-DCR) and external dacryocystorhinostomy(external-DCR) and to evaluate patient satisfaction after the procedures.Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) were examined prospectively.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Demographic data,follow-up periods, success rates and complications were recorded.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The time ittakes patients to return to daily routine was 12.4 ± 2.71 days in external-DCR and, 5.10 ± 0.99 days in endonasal-DCR (p
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: To compare the results of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (endonasal-DCR) and external dacryocystorhinostomy(external-DCR) and to evaluate patient satisfaction after the procedures.Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) were examined prospectively. Demographic data,follow-up periods, success rates and complications were recorded. A patient satisfaction questionnaire was used for subjectiveevaluation. Results: The mean age of external-DCR patients was 53.14± 3.41 while it was 52.05 ± 2.15 years years in patients who underwentendonasal-DCR procedure (p=0.074). The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 30 months. The success rates in the endonasal-DCRand external-DCR operations were 91.1% and 92.3%, respectively. The patient satisfaction was better in the endonasal-DCR ascompared to external-DCR. Compared to external-DCR (17%), none of the endonasal-DCR patients had visible scars. The time ittakes patients to return to daily routine was 12.4 ± 2.71 days in external-DCR and, 5.10 ± 0.99 days in endonasal-DCR (p

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

VURAL, E., ERİS, E., ÇELEBİ, A. R. C., BEKMEZ, S., NURÇİN, H., PERENTE, İ., ÖZARSLAN, Z. (2022). Comparison of endoscopic and externaldacryocystorhinostomy in terms of operation success andpatient satisfaction; A prospective study. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 4, 816–820. https://ajindex.com/articles/446003

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Lee DW, Chai CH, Loon SC. Primary external dacryocystorhinostomy versus primary endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2010;38:418-26
  2. Lee-Wing MW, Ashenhurst ME. Clinicopathologic analysis of 166 patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology 2001;108:2038-40
  3. Grob SR, Campbell A, Lefebvre DR, et al. External Versus Endoscopic Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2015;55:51-62
  4. Whittet HB, Shun-Shin GA, Awdry P. Functional endoscopic transnasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Eye (Lond) 1993;7:545-9
  5. Massaro BM, Gonnering RS, Harris GJ. Endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. A new approach to nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108:1172-6
  6. Christenbury JD. Translacrimal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Arch Ophthalmol 1992;110:170-1
  7. Schlachter DM, Richani K, Black EH. Diode LaserAssisted Endocanalicular Dacryocystorhinostomy: A Prospective Study. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;32:183-6
  8. Blanco Mateos G, Santos Perez J. Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a new perspective in the treatment of nasolacrimal obstruction. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2004;79:99-101
  9. Saha R, Sinha A, Phukan JP. Endoscopic versus external approach dacryocystorhinostomy: A comparative analysis. Niger Med J 2013;54:165-9
  10. Somuk BT, Alim S, Sapmaz E, et al. Comparison of endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy results and analysis of patients' satisfaction. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016;54:99-104
  11. Ben Simon GJ, Joseph J, Lee S, et al. External versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction in a tertiary referral center. Ophthalmology 2005;112:1463-8
  12. Cokkeser Y, Evereklioglu C, Er H. Comparative external versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: results in 115 patients (130 eyes). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:488-91
  13. Mishra AK, Nilakantan A, Mishra S, et al. Comparison of balloon dacryocystorhinostomy with conventional endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy for relief of acquired distal nasolacrimal drainage obstruction and its impact on quality of life: A prospective, randomized, controlled study. Med J Armed Forces India 2018;74:255-63
  14. Hartikainen J, Antila J, Varpula M, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 1998;108:1861-6
  15. Beigi B, Westlake W, Chang B, et al. Dacryocystorhinostomy in south west England. Eye (L