Advertisement!
Author Information Pack
Editorial Board
Submit article
Special Issue
Editor's selection process
Join as Reviewer/Editor
List of Reviewer
Indexing Information
Most popular articles
Purchase Single Articles
Archive
Free Online Access
Current Issue
Recommend this journal to your library
Advertiser
Accepted Articles
Search Articles
Email Alerts
FAQ
Contact Us
Ophthalmology and Allied Sciences

Volume  4, Issue 3, Sep-Dec 2018, Pages 225-229
 

Original Article

External Dacryocystorhinostomy Versus Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy for Chronic Dacryocystitis: A Prospective Comparative Study

Ashwini K.V.1, Naveen Kumar2

1Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, 2Associate Professor, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Saptagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bangalore, Karnataka 560090, India.

Choose an option to locate / access this Article:
90 days Access
Check if you have access through your login credentials.        PDF      |
|

Open Access: View PDF

DOI: DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21088/oas.2454.7816.4318.6

Abstract

Introduction: Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is an operation that creates a fistula between the lacrimal sac and nasal cavity to facilitate drainage of the tears in cases of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Initially ‘DCR’ was performed by using an external approach for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Of lately endoscopic DCR is evolving as an equally effective alternative intervention.

Objective: The present study is to correlate the surgical outcome of external DCR and endonasal DCR regarding the patency rate and to assess the intraoperative and postoperative complications of both the interventions.

Materials and Method: This prospective clinical study was carried out in the Department of Ophthalmology and ENT, SIMS and RC, Bangalore, from 2016-2017. A total of 30 consecutive patients having complaints of watering with complete nasolacrimal duct obstruction diagnosed by
syringing; known cases were selected for DCR surgery. Dacryocystography was done in all the cases. Among 30 patients a total of 15 patients underwent external DCR and rest of the patients underwent endoscopic DCR. Revision cases were excluded from the study group. A detailed history, regarding symptoms was collected systematically. Data pertaining ocular examination, lacrimal syringing, intra-operative and postoperative complications and finally ultimate surgical outcome were collected. Data was analyzed by SPSS statistical software. ROC test was employed to draw the significant inference.

Results: The result showed that both surgical approaches had almost similar success rate ie. external DCR had 87% success rate with good specificity of 89.0% and sensitivity 79.99% and endoscopic DCR had 80% success rate with 83.22% specificity and sensitivity 71.88%. The complication rate was low in both the groups and no appreciable difference in complication rate was seen in both types of surgery p> 0.01.

Conclusion: Surgical outcome of both endoscopic and external DCR for Chronic Dacryocystitis was quite satisfactory p<0.001. The complication rate was low. Thus, these two different dacryocystorhinostomy techniques will be acceptable alternatives for the treatment of chronic dacryocystitis. With external DCR still the gold standard for chronic dacryocystitis, endoscopic DCR is a safe, minimally invasive effective alternative to external DCR, but it requires expertise and expensive equipment for endoscopy.

Keywords: Dacryocystorhinostomy; External; Endonasal; Endoscopic.

 


Corresponding Author : Ashwini K.V., Associate Professor, Dept of Ophthalmology, Saptagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bangalore, Karnataka 560090, India.