RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: External dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is the method of choice to treat nasolacrimal duct (NLD) obstruction and the other approaches are compared with it, with a failure rate of 4% to 13%. The current study aimed to assess the causes of failure in external DCR by postoperative endoscopic and pathological evaluation. METHODS: The current retrospective cross sectional study followed-up113 patients with external DCR and silicone intubation for three months. Silicone tubes were removed after the third months. Failure was confirmed based on the clinical findings and irrigation test. Paranasal sinus computed tomography (CT) scanning, and endoscopic and pathological evaluations were performed in the failed cases. RESULTS: Totally, 113 patients underwent external DCR. The patients included 71 females and 42 males. The mean age of the patients was 55.91 years; ranged from 18 to 86. Epiphora was the most common complaint before surgery (90.3%). Clinically, epiphora continued in 17 cases (15%), of which 94.11% had at least one sinus CT abnormality and 82.35% had at least one endoscopic abnormality. The most common endoscopic findings were deviated septum (70.6%), scar tissue (52.94%), concha bullosa (46.9%), septal adhesion (47.05%), enlarged middle turbinate (41.2%), and sump syndrome (11.7%). The failure was significantly associated with the chronicity of the initial symptoms (P-value=0.00). Pathologically, there were significant relationship amongst the failure rate, scar formation, and allergic rhinitis (P-values =0.00 and <0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: Preoperative endonasal evaluation and consultation with an otolaryngologist can improve surgical outcomes and help to have a better conscious to intranasal abnormalities before external DCR surgery.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of a teamwork revision endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) in eyes with previously failed external DCR. METHODS: This retrospective study was performed on 50 failed external DCR subjects who underwent a teamwork revision endoscopic DCR by an ophthalmologist and an otolaryngologist. Paranasal sinus CT scanning was performed for each patient before the revision surgery. During surgery, any abnormal tissue noticed before silicone intubation was sent for pathological evaluation. RESULTS: Endoscopic revision DCR was performed on 50 failed external DCR subjects with one-year follow-up. Of these, 31 were female (62%). The age range of the subjects was 18-88 years (mean: 59.98 years). Sinus CT showed at least one abnormality in 94% of cases. Revision endoscopy showed septal deviation (66%), scar formation (32%), ostium problems (28%), and sump syndrome (6%). Pathologic and clinical findings showed that chronic inflammation had a significant association with scar tissue and septal synechia (P = 0.001 and 0.008, respectively). At the final follow-up, anatomical and functional success was achieved in 45 out of 50 (90%) of subjects. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic revision DCR when performed as cooperation of otolaryngologists and ophthalmologists may help resolve the endonasal problems and increase the success rate.
