Endonasal laser-assisted microscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: surgical technique and follow-up results

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with short-term, pushed-type bicanalicular intubation vs. pulled-type monocanalicular intubation for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) has been a primary treatment for adults with nasolacrimal duct obstruction, while the optimal approach and technique remain controversial. With the advancement of endoscopic DCR and the silicone stents, an update of the surgical outcomes and preferable approaches is required. This study aims at comparing the surgical outcomes of endoscopic DCR using pushed bicanalicular intubation (BCI) to pulled monocanalicular intubation (MCI) in adults with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO). Forty five eyes of 45 patients were enrolled, including 22 eyes of 22 patients treated with endoscopic DCR with pulled MCI and 23 eyes of 23 patients with pushed BCI from January 2014 to June 2021. The success rates at stent removal, 1 month and 3 months after removal were 95, 91, and 82%, respectively, in the MCI group, and 100, 87, and 87% in the BCI group. The BCI group had better success rates but failed to reach a significant difference (p = 0.49, p = 0.67, p = 0.24, respectively). After analyzing with binary logistic regression, the implant material was demonstrated as the predictive of surgical success (p = 0.045). There was no significant difference in success rates between patients with dacryocystitis and those without dacryocystitis. We conclude that endoscopic DCR with pushed BCI is easily manipulated and has a promising surgical outcome over pulled MCI. Stent indwelling duration as well as history of dacryocystitis have less influence on the success rates.

Outcomes of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy for intractable lacrimal dacryostenosis and associated factors

AIM

To examine the effects of patient age, canalicular obstruction, mode of anesthesia, and duration of nasolacrimal intubation on the outcomes of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR).

METHODS

Totally 56 eyes of 46 patients with prolonged epiphora underwent minimally invasive endoscopic endonasal DCR. A successful surgical outcome was defined as a significant improvement in symptoms, adequate water passage from the puncta to the nasal cavity, and patency of the DCR ostium. All outcomes were assessed at least 6mo after extubation. Fisher's exact test was used to discuss the factors, and then the logistic regression analysis was made by SAS 9.4 software.

RESULTS

The overall success rate was 75.0%, and complete resolution was observed in 27 eyes. The success rate was higher for patients with ≥6mo intubation than for those with <6mo intubation. However, there were no significant differences in outcomes between groups stratified by age (<65 or ≥65y), presence or absence of canalicular obstruction, mode of anesthesia (local or general), and use or nonuse of a radiowave unit. One patient developed subcutaneous emphysema around the eye and nose and one developed subcutaneous hemorrhage after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic endonasal DCR can be considered safe and minimally invasive with reasonable success rates, particularly when the duration of nasolacrimal intubation is ≥6mo.

Outcome comparison between transcanalicular and external dacryocystorhinostomy

AIM

To compare the outcomes achieved with external dacryocystorhinostomy (EX-DCR) and transcanalicular dacryocystorhinostomy (TC-DCR) using a multidiode laser in patients with bilateral nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO).

METHODS

This prospective study was conducted on 38 eyes of 19 patients with bilateral NLDO. Simultaneous bilateral surgery was performed on all patients. TC-DCR (Group 1) with a diode laser was used in the right eye, and EX-DCR (Group 2) was used in the left eye. All patients were placed under general anesthesia. Routine follow-ups were scheduled at 1wk; 1, 3, 6 and 12mo postoperative intervals. Objective (lacrimal system irrigation) and subjective [tearing, irritation, pain, discharge and visual analogue scale (VAS) score] outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall objective success rate at 12mo was 73.7% (14/19) in Group 1 and 89.5 % (17/19) in Group 2. This difference was statistically significant. There were no significant between-group differences in the subjective results, such as tearing, pain and irritation. Only the discharge scores were found to be significantly higher in Group 1 compared to Group 2 at the 1y follow-up. The average VAS score was 6.8 in Group 1 and 8.7 in Group 2, with no statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Although TC-DCR allows surgeons to perform a minimally invasive and safe procedure, EX-DCR offers better objective and subjective outcomes than TC-DCR.