Background: Two widely accepted treatment modalities for epiphora resulting from nasolacrimal ductus (NLD) obstruction are external and endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR).
Aim: To compare the complications, operative features and results of external and video- endoscopic endonasal DCR performed from January 1st, 1995 to January 1st, 1999. Methods: External DCR with or without silicone tube intubation by Dupuy-Dutemps- Bourget technique was performed on 79 unilateral dacryocystitis patients (66 women and 13 men) in group 1 and endoscopic endonasal hammer-chisel DCR utilizing hammer-chiesel removal of bone located over the lacrimal sac on 51 eyes of 36 cases, 33 women and 3 men (15 bilateral patients) in group 2.
Results: Follow-up period ranged from 6 to 48 months (mean, 25 months) postoperatively. Ages ranged from 4 to 76 years (mean, 38.5 years). Success rate of external and endoscopic hammer-chisel DCR was found to be 89.8°% and 88.2°%, respectively. Less complication rate was observed in endoscopic group with minimal morbidity and shorter operative time compared to the external approach.
Conclusions: Hammer-chisel endoscopic DCR is practical, less traumatic, less time consuming and cosmetically more convenient than external approach. The success rate of the endoscopic DCR procedure is comparable to that of traditional external DCR and also allows simultaneous correction of the intranasal pathologies.
Key words: Dacryocystorhinostomy, external, endoscopic, hammer-chiesel
|
