Prospective randomized comparison of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy

被引:172
作者
Hartikainen, J
Antila, J
Varpula, M
Puukka, P
Seppä, H
Grénman, R
机构
[1] Univ Turku, Dept Ophthalmol, Turku, Finland
[2] Univ Turku, Dept Otorhinolaryngol, Turku, Finland
[3] Univ Turku, Imaging Ctr, Turku, Finland
[4] Ctr Res & Dev, Social Insurance Inst, Turku, Finland
关键词
dacryocystitis; dacryocystorhinostomy; nasolacrimal obstruction;
D O I
10.1097/00005537-199812000-00018
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Objectives and Study Design: The advent of the rigid endonasal endoscope and the development of functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) technique have awakened interest in an endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (EESC-DCR) in treating nasolacrimal obstruction, This prospective, randomized study compares EESC-DCR with traditional external dacryocystorhinostomy (EXT-DCR) for their success rates, surgical duration, and postoperative symptoms. Patients and Methods: Sixty-four cases in 60 patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal sac or duct obstruction were divided into two subgroups by symptoms (simple epiphora/ chronic dacryocystitis), These patients were randomized within both subgroups into two operation groups. Altogether 32 EESC-DCRs and 32 EXT-DCRs were performed. The final follow-up visit was at 1 year. The patency of the lacrimal passage was investigated by irrigation and patients were questioned about their symptoms. Results: The success rate at 1 year after surgery was 75% for EESC-DCR and 91% for EXT-DCR after primary surgery. The difference was not statistically significant (P = .18). The success rate after secondary surgery with a follow-up time of 1 year was 97% in both study groups. The average duration for EESC-DCR was 38 minutes, and 78 minutes for EXT-DCR, (P < .001). Conclusions: EXT-DCR, when compared with EESC-DCR, appears to give a higher, although not statistically significant, primary success rate, but the secondary success rates are equal, indicating that these two different DCR techniques are acceptable alternatives.
引用
收藏
页码:1861 / 1866
页数:6
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] ALLEN K, 1989, OPHTHALMIC SURG LAS, V20, P486
  • [2] [Anonymous], ARCH LARYNGOL RHINOL
  • [3] THE PROS AND CONS OF LASER DACRYOCYSTORHINOSTOMY
    BARTLEY, GB
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1994, 117 (01) : 103 - 106
  • [4] BECKER BB, 1988, OPHTHALMIC SURG LAS, V19, P419
  • [5] Caldwell GW., 1893, NY MED J, V57, P581
  • [6] DRESNER SC, 1991, OPHTHALMIC SURG LAS, V22, P222
  • [7] Dupuy-Dutemps B., 1921, ANN OCUL, V158, P241
  • [8] El Khoury J., 1992, Acta Oto-Rhino-Laryngologica Belgica, V46, P401
  • [9] Eloy P., 1995, Rhinology (Utrecht), V33, P229
  • [10] Emmerich K. H., 1994, Ophthalmologe, V91, P395