Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-6mz5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-22T04:20:24.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of external and endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2008

M Feretis ,
J R Newton ,
B Ram  and
F Green
M Feretis
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Scotland, UK
J R Newton*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Scotland, UK
B Ram
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Scotland, UK
F Green
Affiliation:
Department of Ophthalmology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Scotland, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr J R Newton, 17 Queens Avenue, Aberdeen AB15 6WA, Scotland, UK. E-mail: jnewton59@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

External dacryocystorhinostomy has been the treatment for nasolacrimal duct obstruction for more than a century. More recently, nasal endoscopy has allowed this procedure to be carried out endonasally.

Aim:

The aim of this postal questionnaire study was to compare the health status of patients treated for epiphora by external versus endonasal non-laser dacryocystorhinostomy.

Method:

The Glasgow benefit inventory questionnaire, along with an additional, department-based symptomatic questionnaire, was distributed to all patients fitting our criteria.

Results:

Satisfactorily completed questionnaires were received from 64 out of 90 patients in the external group and from 30 of 41 patients in the endonasal group. Results indicated positive scores for both groups for all four subscales of the Glasgow benefit inventory. There were no statistically significant differences between results for the external and endonasal procedures. The ocular symptomatology questionnaire results indicated better scores for the external procedure, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.

Keywords

DacryocystorhinostomyEndoscopyLacrimal Duct ObstructionOutcomes Assessment

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 123 , Issue 3 , March 2009 , pp. 315 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2008

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

Presented at the Scottish Otolaryngology Society Winter Meeting, 11 May 2007, Dunkeld, Scotland, UK.

References

1 Tanabe, T, Ogura, M, Kihara, K, Kitahara, S. Endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy in outpatient clinic. Intern Congress Series 2003;1240:967–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Woog, JJ, Metson, R, Puliafito, CA. Holmium:YAG endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;116:1–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Bartley, GB. Perspectives: the pros and cons of laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1994;117:103–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Hartikainen, J, Antila, J, Varpula, M, Puuka, P, Seppa, H, Grenamn, R. Prospective randomised comparison of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 1998;108:1861–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Dolman, PJ. Comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy with nonlaser endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmol 2003;110:78–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Cokkesser, Y, Evereklioglu, CEM, Hamdi, ER. Comparative external versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: results in 115 patients (130 eyes). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:488–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Onerci, M, Orhan, M, Ogretenoglu, O, Irkec, M. Long-term results and reasons of failure of intranasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Acta Otolaryngol 2000;120:319–22Google ScholarPubMed
8 Robinson, K, Gatehouse, S, Browning, GG. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996;105:415–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Konstantinidis, I, Triaridis, S, Printza, A, Triaridis, A, Nousios, G, Karagiannidis, K. Assessment of patient satisfaction from septo-rhinoplasty with the use of Glasgow Benefit Inventory and Nasal Symptom questionnaire. Acta Otolaryngol Bel 2003;57:123–9Google ScholarPubMed
10 Banerjee, A, Dempster, JH. Laser palatoplasty: evaluation of patient status using the Glasgow Benefit Inventory. J Laryngol Otol 2000;114:601–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Ho, A, Sachidananda, R, Carrie, S, Neoh, C. Quality of life assessment after non-laser endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;31:399–403CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Bakri, SJ, Carney, AS, Robinson, K, Jones, NS, Downes, RN. Quality of life outcomes following dacryocystorhinostomy: external and laser techniques compared. Orbit 1999;18:83–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13 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
14 Tarbet, KJ, Custer, PL. External dacryocystorhinostomy, surgical success, patient satisfaction and economic cost. Ophthalmol 1995;102:1065–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed