Clinical Rhinology

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2020)
Volume  12 (2019)
Volume  11 (2018)
Volume  10 (2017)
Volume  9 (2016)
Volume  8 (2015)
Volume  7 (2014)
Volume  6 (2013)
Volume  5 (2012)
Volume  4 (2011)
Volume  3 (2010)
Volume  2 (2009)
Related articles

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2018 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy: A Comparative Study between Conventional Mucosal Flap and Silicone Stenting

Chaitry K Shah, Neena H Bhalodiya

Keywords : Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, Nasolacrimal duct obstruction, Neo-ostium, Silicone tube stent

Citation Information : Shah CK, Bhalodiya NH. Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy: A Comparative Study between Conventional Mucosal Flap and Silicone Stenting. Clin Rhinol An Int J 2018; 11 (1):15-17.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10013-1335

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-09-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aims: Recurrent stenosis and closure of neostium are considered a major factor for surgical failure in endoscopic dacryocystitis (endo-OCR). The main objective of this study is to evaluate the role of silicon stent in maintaining the patency of neostium and compare it with the conventional mucosal flap technique. Materials and methods: Endodacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) were done in 60 eyes. In 30 eyes only mucosal flap was created and in other 30 silicon stent tubes were used. All patients were taken under general anesthesia. Results: In our study, 90% success in syringing patency was seen in the group with mucosal flap only and 100% success was seen in silicon stenting at 6 months of follow-up. Conclusion: Significant difference in endo-DCR success rates were seen with the use of stenting in our study especially in revision cases. Clinical significance: It is really important to provide success in revision cases of DCR surgery, and silicone stenting helps to obtain that according to our study.

PDF Share
  1. Caldwell GW. Two new operations for obstruction of the nasal duct. N Y J Med l893;57:581-582.
  2. McDonough M, Meiring JH. Endoscopic transnasaldacryocystorhinostomy. J Laryngol Otol 1989;103:585-587.
  3. Leong SC, Macewen CJ, White PS. A systematic review of outcomes after dacryocystorhinostomy in adults. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010;24:81-90.
  4. Korkut AY, Teker AM, Yazici MZ, et al. Surgical outcomes of primary and revision endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(6):1706-1708.
  5. Woog JJ, Metson R, Puliafito CA. Holmium:YAG endonasal laser dacryocysto-rhinostomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;116: 1-10.
  6. Unlu HH, Toprak B, Aslan A, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes in primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;111:704-709.
  7. Linberg JV, Anderson RL, Bumsted RM, et al. Study of intranasal ostium in external dacryocystorhinostomy. Arch Ophthalmol 1982;100:1758-1762.
  8. David AL. Antifibrosis agents and glaucoma surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994;35:3789-3791.
  9. Boush GA, Bradley NL, Dortzbach RK. Results of endonasal laser-assisted dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology 1994;101:955-959.
  10. Kong YT, Kim TI, Kong BW. A report of 131 cases of endoscopic laser lacrimal surgery. Opthalmology 1994;101(11):1793-1800.
  11. Woog JJ, Metson R, Puliafito CA. Holmium:YAG endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Opthalmol 1993;116(1):1-10.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.