Clinical Study of Endoscopic Endonasal Conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy with Jones Tube Placement

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic endonasal primary conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy (CDCR) and revision CDCR after primary CDCR. Methods: Twenty-four patients who had undergone endoscopic endonasal CDCR with a Jones tube and who were followed up for over 6 months at our hospital were reviewed retrospectively. Our analysis included success rate, operation times, and causes of failure. Results: The indications for revision CDCR were Jones tube prolapse and inadequate tube length. The initial success rate in the primary and revision groups were 78.6% (11/14) and 100% (10/10), respectively, and their mean operation times were 24 min (± 6.3) and 21 min (± 6.1), respectively. Main causes of failure included inaccurate tube length and abnormal tube position. Conclusions: Endoscopic endonasal CDCR appears to be a reasonable revision and primary approach, because it allows Jones tube length to be measured accurately during surgery, and an 18- to 20-mm Jones tube length was used in most cases.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic endonasal conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy with Jones tube placement: A thirteen-year experience

“…While this study was limited by a relatively small sample size and varying follow-up duration, it demonstrated the advantages of endonasal CDCR. In a previous report from 2007, the primary success rate of endonasal CDCR was 78.6% at 6 months postoperative and the mean operation time was 24 min (Park et al, 2007). In the present study, the primary success rate was 87.9% and the mean operation time was 26 min.…”

“…Some reports have demonstrated the effectiveness of endonasal CDCR. Boboridis and Downes reported a 75% success rate for 16 cases (Boboridis and Downes, 2005); Park et al reported a 78.6% success rate for 14 cases (Park et al, 2007) and Trotter and Mayer reported a 100% success rate for 7 cases (Trotter and Meyer, 2000). To the best of our knowledge, there is only one report that has compared the two techniques, which demonstrated some advantages of endonasal CDCR (Trotter and Meyer, 2000).…”

“…Aside from a 2007 report by Park et al (Park et al, 2007), there have been no other reports on revision CDCR to date. Park et al reported a 100% success rate 6 months postoperative and a mean operation time of 21 min.…”

“…The surgical technique of both the primary and revision procedure has been described in Park's report (Park et al, 2007).…”

“…Park et al first reported revision CDCR using endoscopy (Park et al, 2007). To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies on the long-term results of endoscopic endonasal CDCR for both primary and revision procedures.…”