Transcanalicular Endoscope Combined Laser Assisted Dacryocystorhinostomy

Pal, Virendra K; Agarwal, Ajai

doi:10.7869/djo.2012.82

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there are wide variations in the reported success rates of laser DCR. [23][24][25] Maini et al found a 68% success rate with laser DCR at 12-month follow-up. They also suggested that excessive eschar formation with the use of lasers can cause increased fibrosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Outcomes of the Standard Technique of Endoscopic DCR with Its Modifications: A Retrospective Analysis

Kumar¹,

Mishra²,

Sethi³

et al. 2018

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the outcomes of various techniques of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). Study Design Retrospective case record analysis. Settings Tertiary care referral center. Subject and Methods Retrospective analysis of case records was carried out pertaining to the period from January 1996 to September 2017 with respect to patients who had undergone endoscopic DCR with either the standard technique or one of its modifications. Case notes showing well-documented preoperative evaluation, operative details, postoperative assessment, and minimum 6-month follow-up were considered. The outcomes were measured on the basis of patients’ postoperative symptoms, clinical examination, and sac-syringing results. Results A total of 423 patients were included in the study. Of these, 169 underwent standard endoscopic DCR; 87, endoscopic DCR with stent; 19, endoscopic DCR with mitomycin C; 62, powered DCR; 29, laser-assisted DCR; and 57, balloon DCR. There was no statistically significant difference in success rates, recurrences, or complications of various techniques at 3 or 6 months. Mean operating time was lowest for balloon DCR (mean ± SD, 27.1 ± 3.1 minutes), followed by standard endoscopic DCR (38.2 ± 3.6 minutes; P = .001). Conclusion Standard endoscopic DCR and its more sophisticated modifications were equally effective and safe in managing distal nasolacrimal drainage obstruction. Balloon DCR, followed by standard endoscopic DCR, was significantly faster than other techniques.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%