Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kn6lq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T18:43:37.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-efficiency of endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2007

S Anari ,
G Ainsworth  and
A K Robson
S Anari*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Carlisle, UK
G Ainsworth
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle, UK
A K Robson
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Carlisle, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Shahram Anari, 33 Thornbury Close, Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 2FD, UK. E-mail: sssanari@yahoo.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

In most centres in the United Kingdom, endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy is currently undertaken as a joint operation between ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists. The addition of an extra surgeon, the use of endoscopic equipment and the relatively lower success rate of this procedure made us compare endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy with regards to costs and income for our hospital.

Methods:

All 38 primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy cases performed in our centre in 2001–2003 were retrospectively compared with the 49 external dacryocystorhinostomy cases performed in 1993–2000. Cost–income calculations were made based on: rate of local anaesthesia, success rate, rate of day case admission, hospital reference cost for dacryocystorhinostomy, and the income per case extracted from national tariffs (based on the Health Resources Group). Also, the average number of cases per session was used to calculate the income gained per session for each method.

Results:

The following rates between the endoscopic and the external dacryocystorhinostomy were found: local anaesthesia, 29 vs 6 per cent, respectively; day-case operation, 95 vs 12 per cent, respectively; and success rate, 87 vs 94 per cent, respectively. The average number of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy cases conducted in a single theatre session was twice that of external dacryocystorhinostomy cases. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy generated approximately twice the income of external dacryocystorhinostomy (£6585 vs £3292, respectively).

Conclusion:

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy is more cost-effective than external dacryocystorhinostomy, despite having a lower success rate and greater usage of resources, as the endoscopic procedure generates more income. This is mainly due to the higher number of cases per session and the higher rates of local anaesthesia and day case operations possible.

Keywords

Lacrimal Apparatus DiseasesEndoscopesOtorhinolaryngologic Surgical ProceduresCost Benefit Analysis

Information

Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 122 , Issue 5 , May 2008 , pp. 476 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2007

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

References

1 Mirza, S, Al-Barmani, A, Douglas, SA, Bearn, MA, Robson, AK. A retrospective comparison of endonasal KTP laser dacryocystorhinostomy versus external dacryocystorhinostomy. Clin Otolaryngol 2002;27:347–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Dietrich, C, Mewes, T, Kuhnemund, M, Hashemi, B, Mann, WJ, Amedee, RG. Long-term follow-up of patients with microscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Rhinol 2003;17:57–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Woog, JJ, Kennedy, RH, Custer, PL, Kaltreider, SA, Meyer, DR, Camara, JG. Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2001;108:2369–77CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Lee, TS, Woog, JJ. Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in the primary treatment of acute dacryocystitis with abscess formation. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;17:180–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Ben Simon, GJ, Joseph, J, Lee, S, Schwarcz, RM, McCann, JD, Goldberg, RA. External versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction in a tertiary referral center. Ophthalmology 2005;112:1463–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Durvasula, VSP, Gatland, DJ. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: long-term results and evolution of surgical technique. J Laryngol Otol 2004;118:628–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Erdol, H, Akyol, N, Imamoglu, HI, Sozen, E. Long-term follow-up of external dacryocystorhinostomy and the factors affecting its success. Orbit 2005;24:99–102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Tsirbas, A, Davis, G, Wormald, PJ. Mechanical endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy versus external dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;20:50–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Gerbaud, L, Chiambaretta, F, Desrumeaux, H, Privat, C, Doz, M, Menerath, JM et al. Cost efficiency study of lacrimal canal obstruction treatment. J Radiol 2003;84:41–6Google ScholarPubMed
10 Hartikainen, J, Antila, J, Varpula, M, Puukka, P, Seppa, H, Grenman, R. Prospective randomized comparison of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 1998;108:1861–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Hartkainen, J, Grenman, R, Puukka, P, Seppa, H. Prospective randomized comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy and endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology 1998;105:1106–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Malhotra, R, Wright, M, Olver, JM. A consideration of the time taken to do dacryo-cystorhinostomy (DCR) surgery. Eye 2003;17:691–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar