Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9b74x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-06T03:55:40.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: a retrospective study of our experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2025

Louay Salfity Open the ORCID record for Louay Salfity [Opens in a new window] ,
George McNally ,
Bertie Fernando  and
Anu Daudia
Louay Salfity*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Royal Blackburn Teaching Hospital, Blackburn, UK
George McNally
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Royal Blackburn Teaching Hospital, Blackburn, UK
Bertie Fernando
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Royal Blackburn Teaching Hospital, Blackburn, UK
Anu Daudia
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Royal Blackburn Teaching Hospital, Blackburn, UK
*
Corresponding author: Louay Salfity; Email: louaysalfity@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the surgical and patient reported outcomes for monocanalicular and bicanalicular silicone stent insertion in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy for distal nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was undertaken for all endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy cases performed collaboratively by ENT and ophthalmology at Royal Blackburn Hospital.

Results

A total of 60 patients were included in the study. Tubes were used in 95 per cent of cases; 92 per cent reported a positive outcome. Minor post-operative complications occurred in 30 per cent. When further broken down by tube type, success rates were 94 per cent for monocanalicular and 95.5 per cent for bicanalicular stents, however, the difference was not statistically significant. In contrast, the complication rates were 22 per cent for monocanalicular stents and 63.6 per cent for bicanalicular stents, with this difference being statistically significant.

Conclusion

Both monocanalicular and bicanalicular stents showed similar high surgical success rates. However, monocanalicular stents were better tolerated by patients and associated with fewer complications.

Keywords

dacryocystorhinostomyrhinology

Information

Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , First View , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Louay Salfity takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Saleh, GM, Tossounis, CM, Litwin, AS, Gauba, V, Samaras, K, McLean, CJ. Monocanalicular versus bicanalicular intubation in external dacryocystorhinostomy for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Orbit 2009;28:110–14Google Scholar
Lin, AE, Chang, Y-C, Lin, M-Y, Tam, K-W, Shen, Y-D. Comparison of treatment for congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Ophthalmol 2016;51:34–40Google Scholar
Rabina, G, Golan, S, Neudorfer, M, Leibovitch, I. External dacryocystorhinostomy: characteristics and surgical outcomes in patients with and without previous dacryocystitis. J Ophthalmol 2013;2013:287524Google Scholar
Ali, MJ, Naik, MN, Honavar, SG. External dacryocystorhinostomy: tips and tricks. Oman J Ophthalmol 2012;5:191–5Google Scholar
AF, Tasneem, VI, Nayak, Narayanaswamy, N, Pandiyan, H, SN, Prasad. Comparative study of external dacryocystorhinostomy with silicone tube intubation with endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction. IP Int J Ocul Oncol Oculoplasty 2020;6:109–13Google Scholar