Endoscopic Study of the Intranasal Ostium in External Dacryocystorhinostomy Postoperative. Influence of Saline Solution and 5-Fluorouracil

Costa, Marilisa Nano; Marcondes, Ana Maria; Sakano, Eulália; Kara‐José, Newton

doi:10.1590/s1807-59322007000100007

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Crosssectional studies and case reports were the most frequent design type in both journals, representing over 50% of all the clinical articles published during that year. Out of the 289 articles published in 2007, four were randomized (or quasi-randomized) trials [9][10][11][12] and four were systematic reviews, [13][14][15][16] thus representing less than 2% of the total number of published papers in both of these journals. After exclusion of six clinical guidelines [17][18][19][20][21][22] and 80 non-evidence articles (technical notes, clinical measurement validation studies, continuing medical education, quizzes and others) the distribution of the remaining 203 articles is presented in Table 2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and level of evidence of studies published in two Brazilian medical journals recently indexed in the ISI Web of Science database

Torloni

Riera

2010

Sao Paulo Med. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES:The level of evidence and methodological quality of articles published in medical journals are important aids for clinicians in decision-making and also affect journals' impact factor. Although systematic reviews (SR) are considered to represent the highest level of evidence, their methodological quality is not homogeneous and they need to be as carefully assessed as other types of study. This study aimed to assess the design and level of evidence of articles published in 2007, in two recently indexed Brazilian journals (Clinics and Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira), and to evaluate the methodological quality of the SRs. DESIGN AND SETTING:Descriptive study developed in the Brazilian Cochrane Center, Universidade Federal de São Paulo.METHODS: All 289 published articles were classified according to types of study design and level of evidence. The SRs were critically appraised by two evaluators using the AMSTAR tool. RESULTS:The most frequent design types were cross-sectional studies (39.9%), case reports (15.8%), experimental studies (10.8%) and narrative reviews (7.4%). According to the Oxford criteria, 25.6% of the articles were classified as level 4 or 5 evidence, while 2.8% were level 1. SRs represented only 2% of the published articles and their methodological quality scores were low. CONCLUSIONS:The main design types among the published papers were observational and experimental studies and narrative reviews. SRs accounted for a small proportion of the articles and had low methodological scores. Brazilian medical journals need to encourage publication of greater numbers of clinically relevant papers of high methodological quality.RESUMO CONTEXTO E OBJETIVOS: O nível de evidência e a qualidade metodológica dos artigos publicados em revistas médicas são importantes para auxiliar os clínicos a tomarem decisões e também afetam o fator de impacto dos periódicos. Apesar de as revisões sistemáticas (RS) serem consideradas o maior nível de evidência, sua qualidade metodológica não é homogênea e elas precisam ser avaliadas tão criteriosamente como outros tipos de estudos. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar os desenhos e nível de evidência dos artigos publicados em 2007 em duas revistas brasileiras recentemente indexadas (Clinics e Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira) e avaliar a qualidade metodológica das RS. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL:Estudo descritivo desenvolvido no Centro Cochrane do Brasil, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. MÉTODOS:Todos os 289 artigos publicados foram classificados quanto ao tipo de desenho e nível de evidência. As RS foram analisadas criticamente por dois revisores usando o instrumento AMSTAR.RESULTADOS: Os tipos de desenhos mais frequentes foram os transversais (39,9%), relatos de casos (15,8%), estudos experimentais (10,8%) e revisões narrativas (7,4%). Segundo os critérios de Oxford, 25,6% dos artigos eram de nível 4 ou 5 e 2,8% de nível 1. As RS representaram apenas 2% do total dos artigos publicados e tiveram notas de qualidade metodológica baixas...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and level of evidence of studies published in two Brazilian medical journals recently indexed in the ISI Web of Science database

Torloni

Riera

2010

Sao Paulo Med. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mucosal-to-mucosal anastomosis performed using Xaps in EXT-DCR is considered to prevent bone regrowth and obstruction. However, mucosal Xaps that do not come together lead to granulation tissue formation and consequently Wbrosis, thus leading to obstruction [4].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of endonasal with external dacryocystorhinostomy in revision cases

Korkut

Teker

Özsütçü

et al. 2010

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective is to compare the success rates of revision endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (END-DCR) with revision external dacryocystorhinostomy (EXT-DCR). The present retrospective study was conducted between January 2002 and July 2009. Seventy-four consecutive patients (17 males, 57 females) who had epiphora or recurrent dacryocystitis after a previous failed EXT-DCR procedure were enrolled in the study. The END-DCR group consisted of 43 patients (10 males, 33 females) who underwent 44 END-DCRs, whereas the EXT-DCR group included 31 patients (7 males, 24 females) who underwent 31 dacryocystorhinostomies (DCRs). Successful DCR was defined as relief of symptoms as demonstrated by saline irrigation at the last post-operative visit. Further nasal surgery was performed in 18 (40.9%) eyes in the END-DCR group. The average follow-up time for the END-DCR and EXT-DCR groups was 11 and 9 months, respectively. The success rate was 77.4% (24/31 DCRs) in the END-DCR group, and 84.1% (37/44 DCRs) in the EXT-DCR group. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding overall success (p = 0.465). END-DCR is as safe and efficient technique as external approach with low complication rates in revision cases. END-DCR yields good esthetic and functional results and has a success rate similar to that of the external approach.

show abstract

“…Causes of failed DCR include fibrous tissue growth, inappropriate size or location of bony ostium, scarring within the osteotomy, common canalicular obstruction, sump syndrome, intervening ethmoid sinus air cells, interference of the middle turbinate, collapse of the bridge between anterior flaps and previously identified canalicular stenosis, active systemic disease, nasal polyposis and concha bullosa [15][16][17][18][19][20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of Traumatic Dacryocystitis and Failed Dacryocystorhinostomy Using Silicone Lacrimal Intubation Set

Rizvi

Sharma

Tripathy

et al. 2011

Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this work is to study the management and success rate of traumatic dacryocystitis and failed dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) using Silicone lacrimal intubation set. A prospective study was conducted at a tertiary eye care hospital, India from February 2006 to January 2008. This study material comprised 50 patients of traumatic dacryocystitis and failed dacryocystorhinostomy. Anterior single flap external dacryocystorhinostomy with Silicon intubation was performed in all the patients. The patients were followed up at weekly intervals for 1 month and thereafter every 2 months for 1 year post operatively. Criteria determining success were based on resolution of epiphora and patency on syringing. In traumatic dacryocystitis, 21(91.3%) cases fulfilled these criteria while 23(85.2%) cases of failed DCR were successful. The overall success rate (88%) was determined with an average follow-up of 1 year. Globally, the technique was effective in 85% of cases. The results were comparable with other similar studies. This study concludes that performing a DCR in traumatic dacryocystitis and failed DCR taking into consideration the complications and chances of failure is a challenge for the surgeon. We opine that External dacryocystorhinostomy with Silicon Intubation is one of the most effective modality in dealing with such cases.

show abstract

Endoscopic Study of the Intranasal Ostium in External Dacryocystorhinostomy Postoperative. Influence of Saline Solution and 5-Fluorouracil

Cited by 15 publications

References 17 publications

Design and level of evidence of studies published in two Brazilian medical journals recently indexed in the ISI Web of Science database

Design and level of evidence of studies published in two Brazilian medical journals recently indexed in the ISI Web of Science database

A comparison of endonasal with external dacryocystorhinostomy in revision cases

Management of Traumatic Dacryocystitis and Failed Dacryocystorhinostomy Using Silicone Lacrimal Intubation Set

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About