This study was designed to compare outcomes of endocanalicular laser-assisted endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) with and without partial anterior middle turbinectomy.
Methods
A prospective randomized comparative study was conducted on 91 subjects with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction, undergoing endocanalicular (ECL) procedures. Group 1 was composed of 44 (7 bilateral) patients undergoing ECL diode laser-assisted endonasal DCR without partial anterior middle turbinectomy and group 2 was composed of 47 (7 bilateral) patients undergoing partial anterior middle turbinectomy and ECL diode laser-assisted endonasal DCR. Follow-up period was 11.0 (6.0–14.5 months) months for group 1 and 9.2 (5.0–14.2 months) months for group 2. Functional success was defined as absence of epiphora and anatomic success was defined as ability to irrigate the lacrimal system. Anatomic and functional success at the 1st week, 3rd month, and final postoperative examinations of two groups were compared using chi-square tests.
Results
Final anatomic successes were 39/51 (76%) cases for group 1 and 51/54 (94%) cases for group 2. Final functional successes were 36/51 (%71) patients in group 1 and 48/54 (88%) patients in group 2. Group 2 had higher success at the final examination and the difference was statistically significant.
Conclusion
We recommend partial anterior middle turbinectomy in all laser ECL laser-assisted endonasal DCR, but further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to strengthen our hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
TarbetK.J., and CusterP.L.External dacryocystorhinostomy. Surgical success, patient satisfaction, and economic cost.Ophthalmology102: 1065–1070, 1995.
2.
BoboridisK.G., BunceC., and RoseG.E.Outcome of external dacryocystorhinostomy combined with membranectomy of a distal canalicular obstruction.Am J Ophthalmol139: 1051–1055, 2005.
3.
KamelR., El-DeenH.G., El-DeenY.S.Manometric measurement of lacrimal sac pressure after endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy.Acta Otolaryngol123: 325–329, 2003.
4.
AthanasiovP.A., PrabhakaranV.C., MannorG.Transcanalicular approach to adult lacrimal duct obstruction: A review of instruments and methods.Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging40: 149–159, 2009.
WormaldP.J., KewJ., and Van HasseltA.Intranasal anatomy of the nasolacrimal sac in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg123: 307–310, 2000.
7.
Ben SimonG.J., JosephJ., LeeS.External versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction in a tertiary referral center.Ophthalmology112: 1463–1468, 2005.
8.
IbrahimH.A., BatterburyM., BanhegyiG.Endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy outcome profile in a general ophthalmic service unit: A comparative retrospective study.Ophthalmic Surg Lasers32: 220–227, 2001.
9.
TsirbasA., DavisG., and WormaldP.J.Revision dacryocystorhinostomy: A comparison of endoscopic and external techniques.Am J Rhinol19: 322–325, 2005.
10.
MassaroB.M., GonneringR.S., and HarrisG.J.Endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy: A new approach to nasolacrimal duct obstruction.Arch Ophthalmol108: 1172–1176, 1990.
11.
MetsonR., WoogJ.J., and PuliafitoC.A.Endoscopic laser dacryocystorhinostomy.Laryngoscope104: 269–274, 1994.
GurlerB., and SanI.Long-term follow-up outcomes of nonlaser intranasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: How suitable and useful are conventional surgical instruments?Eur J Ophthalmol14: 453–460, 2004.
14.
UnluH.H., ToprakB., AslanA.Comparison of surgical outcomes in primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol111: 704–709, 2002.
15.
MortimoreS., BanhegyG.Y., LancasterJ.L.Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy without silicone stenting.J R Coll Surg Edinb44: 371–373, 1999.
TsirbasA., and WormaldP.J.Mechanical endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with mucosal flaps.Br J Ophthalmol87: 43–47, 2003.
18.
MassegurH., TriasE., and AdemaJ.M.Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: Modified technique.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg130: 39–46, 2004.
19.
SeligY.K., BiesmanB.S., and RebeizE.E.Topical application of mitomycin-C in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.Am J Rhinol14: 205–207, 2000.
20.
ParkD.J., and KwakM.S.The effect of mitomycin-C on the success rate of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.J Korean Ophthalmol Soc41: 1674–1679, 2000.
21.
FayetB., RacyE., and AssoulineM.Systematic unciformectomy for a standardized endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy.Ophthalmology109: 530–536, 2002.
22.
LeongS.C., MacewenC.J., and WhiteP.S.A systematic review of outcomes after dacryocystorhinostomy in adults.Am J Rhinol Allergy24: 81–90, 2010.
23.
SmirnovG., TuomilehtoH., TeräsvirtaM.Silicone tubing is not necessary after primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: A prospective randomized study.Am J Rhinol22: 214–217, 2008.
24.
HensonR.D., HensonR.G.Jr., CruzH.L.Jr.Use of the diode laser with intraoperative mitomycin C in endocanalicular laser dacryocystorhinostomy.Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg23: 134–137, 2007.
Alanñón FernándezM.A., Alañón FernándezF.J., Martínez FernándezA.Results of the application of mitomycin during endonasal and endocanalicular dacryocystorhinostomy by diode laser.Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp57: 355–358, 2006.
LeeJ.J., WooK.I., and KimY.D.Middle turbinectomy during dacryocystorhinostomy.J Korean Ophthalmol Soc38: 710–714, 1997.
34.
AnnamalaiS., KumerN.A., MadkourM.B.An association between acquired epiphora and the signs and symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis: A prospective case-control study.Am J Rhinol17: 111–114, 2003.
35.
CharalampidouS., and FulcherT.Does the timing of silicone tube removal following external dacryocystorhinostomy affect patients’ symptoms?Orbit28: 115–119, 2009.
36.
Bernal-SprekelsenM., AlobidI., and MiretJ.M.Complications of endoscopic DCR. In Atlas of Lacrimal Surgery.WeberR.K., KeerlR., SchaeferS.D., and RoccaR.C.D. (Eds). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 87–90, 2007.
Piedrola MarotoD., Franco SanchesJ., Reyes EldblomR.Endonasal versus trans-canalicular endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy using diode laser. Surgical techniques and outcomes.Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp59: 283–287, 2008.
39.
HavasT.E., and LowingerD.S.Comparison of functional endonasal sinus surgery with and without partial middle turbinate resection.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol109: 634–640, 2000.
40.
WeidenbecherM., Hosemann, and BuhrW.Endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: Results in 56 patients.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol103: 363–367, 1994.
41.
RebeizE., ShapshayS., BowldsJ.Anatomic guidelines for dacryocystorhinostomy.Laryngoscope102: 1181–1184, 1992.
42.
BanfieldG.K., and McCombeA.Partial resection of the middle turbinate at functional endoscopic sinus surgery.J R Army Med Corps145: 18–19, 1999.
43.
GiuseppeB., AlessandraP., LucianoG.Partial middle turbinectomy during endoscopic sinus surgery for extended sinonasal polyposis: Short- and mid-term outcomes.Acta Otolaryngol128: 73–77, 2008.
44.
LeeK.C.Outcomes of posterior lacrimal sac approach in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: Review of 35 cases.Am J Rhinol22: 210–213, 2008.
45.
KennedyD.W., ZinreichS.J., RosenbaumA.E.Functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Theory and diagnostic evaluation.Arch Otolaryngol111: 576–582, 1985.
46.
VlemingM., MiddelweerdR.J., and de VriesN.Complications of endoscopic sinus surgery.Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg118: 617–623, 1992.
47.
ThorntonR.S.Middle turbinate stabilization technique in endoscopic sinus surgery.Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg122: 869–872, 1996.
48.
FriedmanW.H.Surgery for chronic hyperplastic rhinosinusitis.Laryngoscope85: 1999–2011, 1975.
49.
BiedlingmaierJ.F.Endoscopic sinus surgery with middle turbinate resection: Results and complications.Ear Nose Throat J72: 351–355, 1993.
50.
MorgensteinK.M., and KriegerM.K.Experiences in middle turbinectomy.Laryngoscope90: 1596–1603, 1980.
51.
ShihC., ChinG., and RiceD.H.Middle turbinate resection: Impact on outcomes in endoscopic sinus surgery.Ear Nose Throat J82: 796–797, 2003.
