Search

Background Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (EN-DCR) is an increasingly common procedure performed by otolaryngologists. While EN-DCR has a high rate of success at relieving blockage of the lacrimal system, little is known regarding associated postoperative infection (POI) rates and risk factors. Objective The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with the occurrence of postoperative orbital and rhinologic infection in a large cohort of patients undergoing EN-DCR. Methods A retrospective review of 582 patients who underwent EN-DCR was performed. All patients received antibiotic prophylaxis as a single intraoperative intravenous administration and a ten-day postoperative oral course. Clinical and demographic information was reviewed, including the occurrence of acute orbital or rhinologic infection within 30 days of surgery. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with POI. Results Fifteen of 582 patients (2.6%) developed POI following EN-DCR. The most common POI was acute rhinosinusitis (10/15, 66.7%), followed by acute dacryocystitis (2/15, 13.3%), preseptal cellulitis (2/15,13.3%), and acute bacterial conjunctivitis (1/15, 6.7%). The majority of patients (464/582, 79.7%) underwent concurrent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). In most cases (302/464, 65.1%), ESS was performed to address comorbid rhinosinusitis, whereas 7.8% (36/464) of patients underwent surgery to enhance surgical access to the lacrimal sac. Patients who underwent concurrent ESS were less likely to develop POI (OR: 0.17, CI: 0.04-0.80, p Conclusion Mucopurulence at the time of surgery significantly increased the risk of POI, whereas concurrent ESS, performed most commonly to address comorbid rhinosinusitis, significantly decreased the risk of POI. Awareness of risk factors for POI and appropriate surgical management of concurrent rhinosinusitis can lead to reduced infectious complications after EN-DCR.

Objectives To compare the causes of failure between external and endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) techniques for the treatment of lacrimal obstruction. Study Design A retrospective cohort study. Methods The study population consisted of 53 consecutive patients who underwent revision endoscopic DCR from 2002 to 2013 for lacrimal duct obstruction. Identified causes of previous DCR failure were compared between patients whose initial surgery was performed through an external versus an endoscopic approach. Results Reasons for surgical failure after external (n = 21) versus endoscopic (n = 32) DCR included cicatricial closure of the internal lacrimal ostium (52.4 versus 53.1%; p = 0.96), inadequate removal of bone overlying the lacrimal sac (23.8 versus 9.4%; p = 0.15), sump syndrome (9.5 versus 9.4%; p = 0.99), and intranasal adhesions (65 versus 37.5%; p = 0.05). Adhesions that involved the middle turbinate were a particularly impactful cause of failure when the DCR was performed through an external versus the endoscopic approach (57.1 versus 28.1%; p = 0.04). Septoplasty was more likely to be needed at the time of revision surgery if the initial procedure was performed externally (71.1 versus 15.6%; p = 0.02). Surgical success rates for revision DCR were comparable between the groups (75.0% external versus 73.3% endoscopic; p = 0.90), with a mean follow-up of 12.7 months. Conclusion DCR failure associated with intranasal adhesions was more likely to occur when the surgery was performed through an external rather than an endoscopic approach. Endoscopic instrumentation allowed for identification and correction of intranasal pathology at the time of DCR, includingan enlarged middle turbinate or a deviated septum, which may improve surgical outcome.

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (En-DCR) with different stent materials for lacrimal sac intubation in primary nasolacrimal ductal obstructions. Study Design Randomized controlled study with three parallel groups. Level of evidence is 1b. Methods A total of 91 patients (five bilateral) with primary nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) at a tertiary referral center scheduled for En-DCR were to allocated into three stent groups with a sealed envelope and were randomized into three treatments: silicone, Prolene (polypropylene), and otologic T-tube. Ophthalmology and otolaryngology clinics evaluated the patients preoperatively and postoperatively with endoscopes, lacrimal system syringing, and dacryocystography. The success of the stents was evaluated 12 months after surgery with symptom relief and ostial patency. Complications were also noted. Results The overall success rate of the En-DCR in the stent groups was 78.1% (75/96); specifically, 87.5% (28/32) with silicone, 84.4% (27/32) with Prolene, and 62.5% (20/32) with T-tube. The efficacy of the procedures with the T-tube was significantly lower than that of the Prolene and silicone (p = .031, χ2 test). There were no significant differences between the silicone and Prolene (p = .718, χ2 test). Prolene was found to be related with orbital complications. Spontaneous loss is a particular complication of otologic T-tube and highly portends to failure. Conclusions The results of our study suggest that efficacy, defined as anatomic and functional success, is equally high for silicone and Prolene stents and lower for otologic T-tube in En-DCR.

BackgroundEndoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (EN-DCR) is an effective and safe procedure when treating saccal and postsaccal nasolacrimal duct obstruction. However, sometimes scarring of the rhinostomy site caused by fibrosis may occur, particularly in revision operations. The application of intraoperative mitomycin C (MMC), an antiproliferative agent, has been introduced as one possible technique to improve the outcome. We conducted a prospective, randomized study to evaluate if the use of MMC improves the success in endonasal revision DCR procedure.MethodsThirty revision EN-DCR procedures were performed during 2004–2010. The patients were randomized into two study groups, according to whether the intraoperative MMC was used or not. The technique of EN-DCR procedure in both groups was the same, but in the MMC group, at the end of the procedure a piece of tampon soaked in MMC (0.4 mg/mL) was placed into the rhinostoma for 5 minutes. No silicone stents were inserted. The surgical outcome at the 6-month follow-up visit was considered successful if the lacrimal sac irrigation succeeded and if the patients’ symptoms were relieved.ResultsThe success rate after revision EN-DCR with MMC was 93% and without MMC was 60%. The overall success rate was 77%. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). The relief of the symptoms between groups in both the Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction Symptom Score and ocular symptoms was statistically significant (p = 0.007 and p = 0.02, respectively).ConclusionThe results of our study indicate that the application of intraoperative mitomycin C may improve the outcome in revision EN-DCR.

Background This study compares the anatomic and functional outcomes of primary powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) in surgeons of differing levels of experience. Methods A retrospective interventional study was performed of all consecutive powered endoscopic DCRs performed at a tertiary institution over a period of 10 years from 2002 to 2012. All patients completed a minimum of 3 months follow-up after stent removal. Patient records were reviewed for demographic data, clinical and surgical profiles, adjunctive procedures, complications, and success rates at last follow-up. The level of surgeon's experience performing the DCR was also documented. Anatomic success was defined as patent ostium on irrigation and functional success as free flow of dye into ostium on functional endoscopic dye test and resolution of epiphora. Results Among the 160 DCRs performed by the consultant, all except four underwent intubation; 54.4% (68/125) of these patients required adjunctive procedures. There were no major complications in this group and at a long-term mean follow-up of 14.2 months, the anatomic and functional success rates were 98.1 and 95.6%, respectively. Among the 100 DCRs performed by the fellows, all underwent intubation and 40.8% (29/71) of the patients required adjunctive procedures. The complications include three cases of ostium granulomas and two patients each with postoperative bleeding, stent prolapse, and turbinoseptal synechiae. At the mean follow-up of 10.9 months, the final anatomic success was achieved in 95% of the cases and functional success in 89% of the cases. Conclusion Powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy is an effective procedure and offers excellent results in the hands of experienced surgeons. A good transfer of knowledge and skills along with supervision when required ensures a good surgical success rate, even when the training fellows operate.

Background This study was designed to systematically review the clinical outcomes of dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) surgery. Data sources included PubMed for English language literature from January 1966 to December 2008 combined with a manual review of citations within article bibliographies. Methods Citations acquired from the targeted search were filtered independently by two researchers. Relevant articles were reviewed to obtain information including interventions and outcome measures. The surgical techniques were categorized into external DCR (EX-DCR), endonasal laser-assisted DCR (LA-DCR), and nonlaser endoscopic endonasal DCR techniques (EN-DCR). Articles were then assigned level-of-evidence grades as defined by the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. Results A total of 73 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Of these, 68 were graded as level 4, 11 were graded as level 3b, and 1 was graded at level 2b evidence. A total of 4800 patients were pooled, from which 4921 DCRs were performed. All studies reported success during the follow-up period, although the outcome measures used were not consistent in the studies. Success varied between 65 and 100% after EX-DCR compared with EN-DCR, which varied from 84 to 94%. The success rate of LA-DCR varied widely between 47 and 100%. There was low evidence base to support the use of silicone stent to improve surgical success. Most studies did not show significantly improved outcomes with an antimetabolite. The overall intra- and postoperative complication rates were 1.0 and 6%, respectively. Conclusions DCR is an effective and safe method for the treatment of nasolacrimal obstruction. Meta-analysis of outcomes was not feasible because of the heterogenous patient groups and outcome measures used. Nonetheless, the literature provides considerable levels 3 and 4 evidence to support DCR surgery in adults. Outcomes after EN-DCR and EX-DCR were comparable. The failure rate for LA-DCR was higher.

Background Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is an effective surgical procedure to treat saccal and postsaccal stenosis or nasolacrimal duct obstruction. The use of silicone tube after endoscopic DCR is still controversial. A prospective randomized study was conducted to compare the success rate between the use of silicone stent and no use of silicone stent in endoscopic DCR. Methods A prospective randomized study was conducted at Aseer Central Hospital and Abha Private Hospital, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, on all patients undergoing endoscopic DCR between July 1, 2006 and 30 June 30, 2010. Patients were allocated randomly for endoscopic DCR with or without stent. The data collection included age, sex, diagnosis, method, and duration of surgery. Patients were followed up postoperatively at 1 week, 1 month, and then every 3 months for 1 year. Results During the period of the study a total of 173 cases of postsaccal stenosis underwent endoscopic DCR (67 male and 106 female subjects). The mean age was 51.8 years (range, 18–72 years). A stent was used in 92 patients (53.2%) and not used in 81 patients (46.8%). With silicone tubing the success rate was 96%, and without silicone tubing it was 91%, an overall success rate of 94%. The odds ratio of failure without a silicone tube was 3.25 but confidence interval was from 0.84 to 12.60 and the difference between these two groups was statistically not significant (p = 0.117). Conclusion In this study, there was no statistically significant advantage of using endoscopic DCR with stent over the endoscopic DCR without stent.