Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Endonasal carbon-dioxide laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy verses external dacryocystorhinostomy

  • Main Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is a prospective, non-randomized study to evaluate and compare the results, morbidity and surgical time for endonasal carbon-dioxide laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy. 70 consecutive patients of chronic dacryocystitis with nasolacrimal duct obstruction were selected for the study. 36 patients under went endonasal CO2 laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and 34 had external dacryocystorhinostomy. Selection of the type of operation was left to the patient's choice. All the patients had preoperative counseling and both the procedures were explained in detail with their advantages and disadvantages. Patients not willing for the external incision were selected for endonasal laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and others were operated via external approach. Silicone tubes were put in all the patients for three months after surgery. The final follow up was 12 months after the removal of silicone tubes. The patency of the lacrimal passage was confirmed by irrigation, and patients were questioned about their symptoms.

The success rates, 12 months after removal of silicone tubes were 100% in endonasal CO2 laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and 88.24% in external dacryocystorhinostomy. The surgical time of endonasal laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy was 38 minutes as compared to 62 in external dacryocystorhinostomy. Complication rate in both groups was almost equal.

Thus, we came to the conclusion that Endonasal CO2 laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy is a better surgical option to external dacryocystorhinostomy in cases of chronic dacryocystitis with nasolacrimal duct obstruction, with shorter surgical time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Welham RA. Management of unsuccessful lacrimal surgery. Br J Ophthalmol 1987;71:152–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Becker BB. Dacryocystorhinostomy without flaps. Ophthalmic Surg 1988;19:419–27.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosen N, Sharir M, Moverman DC, Rosner M. Dacryocystorhinostomy with silicone tubes: evaluation of 253 cases. Ophthalmic Surg 1989;20:115–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Vanhoucke K, Colla B, Missotten L. Dacryocystorhinostomy: indications, operations, results and some variants. Bull Soc Belge Ophthalmol 1990;238:103–10.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dresner SC, Klussman KG, Meyer DR, Linberg JV. Outpatient dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmic Sug 1991;22:222–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Osguthorpe JD, Hoang G. Nasolacrimal injuries: evaluation and management. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1991;24:59–78.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tarbet KJ, Custer PL. External Dacryocystorhinostomy: surgical success, patient satisfaction and economic cost. Ophthalmology 1995;102:1065–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Emmerich KH, Busse H, Meyer-Rusenberg HW. Dacryocystorhinostomy externa Ophthalmologe 1994;91:395–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ibrahim HA, Batterbury M, Banhegyi G, McGalliard J. Endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy outcome profile in a general ophthalmic service unit: a comparative retrospective study. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 2001;32:220–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mirza S, Al-Barmani A, Douglas SA, Bearn MA, Robson AK. A retrospective comparison of endonasal KTP laser dacryocystorhinostomy versus external dacryocystorhinostomy. Otolaryngol 2002;27:347–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hartikainen J, Grenman R, Puukka P, Seppa H. Prospective randomized comparison of external Dacryocystorhinostomy and endonasal laser Dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology 1998;105:1106–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Whittet HB, Shun-Shin GA, Awdry P. Functional endoscopic transnasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Eye 1993;7:545–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yasar C, Cem E, Hamdi ER. Comparative external versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: Results of 115 patients (130 eyes). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:488–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gonnering RS, Lyon DB, Fisher JC. Endoscopic laser assisted lacrimal surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 1991;111:152–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Reifler DM. Results of endoscopic KTP laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;9:231–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Woog JJ, Metson R, Puliafito CA. Holmium: YAG endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;116:1–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Metson R, Woog JJ, Puliafito CA. Endoscopic laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 1994;104:269–74.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Boush GA, Lemke BN, Dortzbach RK. Results of endonasal laser-assisted dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology 1994;101:955–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kong YT, Kim TI, Kong BW. A report of 131 cases of endoscopic laser lacrimal surgery. Ophthalmology 1994;101:1793–800.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Seppa H, Grenman R, Hartikainen J. Endonasal CO2−Nd: YAG laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1994;72:703–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tutton MK, O'Donnell NP. Endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy under direct vision. Eye 1995;9:485–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Szubin L, Papageorge A, Sacks E. Endonasal laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Rhinol 1999;13:371–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Piaton JM, Keller P, Limon S, Quenot S. Holmium: YAG and Neodymium: YAG laser assisted trans-canalicular dacryocystorhinostomy. Results of 317 first procedures. Fr Ophthalmol 2001;24:253–64.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Piaton JM, Keller P, Limon S, Quenot S. First line endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy technique and results. Comparison between diode laser and electrocautery instrument. Study based on 422 procedures. Fr Ophthmol 2002;25:135–45.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hofman T, Lacker A, Muellner K, Luxenberger W, Wolf G. Endolacrimal KTP laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy. Arch. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:329–32.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Caldwell GW. Two new operations for obstruction of the nasal duct. N Y Med J 1893;57:581–2.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Massaro BM, Gonnering RS, Harris GJ. Endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy: a new approach to naso-lacrimal duct obstruction. Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108:1172–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rudolf H, Marco C. Microsurgical Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy with long-term insertion of bicanalicular silicone tubes. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:188–91.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bartley GB. Acquired lacrimal drainage obstruction: an etiological classification system. Case reports, and a review of the literature. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;8:237–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sprekelsen MB, Barberan MT. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: Surgical technique and results. Laryngoscope 1996;106:187–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Mortimore S, Banhegy GY, Lancaster JL, Karkanevatos A. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy without silicon stenting. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1999;44:371–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Rudolf H, Marco C, Marc J. External dacryocystorhinostomy versus Endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy—a letter to editor. Ophthalmology 1999;106:647–8.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Camara JG, D'Santigo MD. Success rate of Endoscopic Laser-assisted Dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology 1999;106:441–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Brookes JL, Ovler JM. Endoscopic endonasal management of prolapsed silicone tubes after dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology 1999;106:2101–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Walland MJ, Rose GE. The effect of silicone intubation on failure and infection rates after dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmic Surg 1994;25:597–600.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology Head Neck surgery and Communication disorders, Al-Nahdha Hospital, Ruwi, P O Box 937, Postal Code 112, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

    Ashok Verma & Mazin Al Khabori

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Al-Nahdha Hospital, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

    Rajiv Zutshi

Authors
  1. Ashok Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mazin Al Khabori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rajiv Zutshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mazin Al Khabori.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Verma, A., Al Khabori, M. & Zutshi, R. Endonasal carbon-dioxide laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy verses external dacryocystorhinostomy. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 58, 9–14 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02907729

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02907729

Key Words

Search

Navigation