Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation: 4 years retrospective study

  • Rhinology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study is to assess different outcomes between endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (En-DCR) with and without silicone intubation. We retrospectively analyzed 84 patients (89 procedures), suffering from chronic epiphora for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction, treated with En-DCR and divided into two groups depending on silicone stent intubation. The surgical outcomes were evaluated at 7 post-operative controls using Munk’s score criteria. Functional success was defined as absence of epiphora, no further episodes of dacryocystitis, and a patent ostium after fluorescein irrigation. 45 En-DCR with stent and 44 En-DCR without stent were performed. Success rate after 18 months follow-up were, respectively, 82.2 % in the stent group and 88.6 % in the non-stent group (OR 0.59) with no statistical differences. The ostial size reduction has been reported in higher percentage in the stent group, mainly due to peristomal granuloma (OR 3.64), scar tissue formation (OR 2.25), and turbinoseptal synaechia (OR 1.76). The benefits of non-intubation are less patient discomfort, reduced surgical time and costs, simpler follow-up regimen and less intubation-associated complications. En-DCR without silicone stent intubation should be the first choice of procedure, stent intubation should be reserved in selected cases with poor local conditions pre and intra-operatively assessed.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Feretis M, Newton JR, Ram B, Green F (2009) Comparison of external and endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. J Laryngol Otol 123:315–319

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tsirbas A, Wormald PJ (2003) Mechanical endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with mucosal flaps. Br J Ophthalmol 87:43–47

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Caldwell GW (1893) Two new operations for obstruction of the nasal duct, with preservation of the canaliculi, and with an incidental description of a new lacrimal probe. Am J Ophthalmol 10:189–193

    Google Scholar 

  4. McDonogh M, Meiring JH (1989) Endoscopic transnasal dacryocystorhinostomy. J Laryngol Otol 103:585–587

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Onerci M, Orhan M, Ogretmenoğlu O, Irkeç M (2000) Long-term results and reasons for failure of intranasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Acta Otolaryngol 120:319–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Saeed BM (2012) Endoscopic DCR without stents: clinical guidelines and procedure. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269(2):545–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Smirnov G, Tuomilehto H, Terasvirta M, Nuutinen J, Seppä J (2008) Silicone tubing is not necessary after primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: a prospective randomized study. Am J Rhinol 22:214–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moore WM, Bentley CR, Olver JM (2002) Functional and anatomic results after two types of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: surgical and holmium laser. Ophthalmology 109(8):1575–1582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wormald P, Kew J, Van Hasselt A (2000) Intranasal anatomy of the nasolacrimal sac in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123:307–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Navarro P, Machado AJ, Crespo AN (2013) Assessment of the lacrimal recess of the maxillary sinus on computed tomography scans. Eur J Rad 82(5):802–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fayet B, Racy E, Assouline M, Zerbib M (2005) Surgical anatomy of the lacrimal fossa a prospective computed tomodensitometry scan analysis. Ophthalmology 112(6):1119–1128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Soyka MB, Treumann T, Schlegel CT (2010) The Agger Nasi cell and uncinate process, the keys to proper access to the nasolacrimal drainage system. Rhinology 48:364–367

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Raikos A, Waidyasekara P, Morrison AK (2015) Surgical and topographic anatomy of the maxillary line: an important landmark for endoscopic nasal surgery. Ann Anat 197:24–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Munk PL, Lin DT, Morris DC (1990) Epiphora: treatment by means of dacryocystoplasty with balloon dilation of the nasolacrimal drainage apparatus. Radiology 177(3):687–690

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Callejas CA, Tewfik MA, Wormald PJ (2010) Powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with selective stenting. Laryngoscope 120:1449–1452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gibbs DC (1967) New probe for the intubation of lacrimal canaliculi with silicone rubber tubing. Br J Opthalmol 51:198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Yigit O, Samancioglu M, Taskin U, Ceylan S, Eltutar K, Yener M (2007) External and endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy in chronic dacryocystitis: comparison of results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264:879–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cannon PS, Chan W, Selva D (2013) Incidence of canalicular closure with endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy without intubation in primary nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology 120:1688–1692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Madge SN, Selva D (2009) Intubation in routine dacryocystorhinostomy: why we do what we do. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 37(6):620–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mohamad SH, Khan I, Shakeel M, Nandapalan V (2013) Long-term results of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with and without stenting. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 95(3):196–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Allen K, Berlin AJ (1989) Dacryocystorhinostomy failure: an association with nasolacrimal silicone intubation. Ophthalmic Surg 20:486–489

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Al-Qahtani AS (2012) Primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with or without silicone tubing: a prospective randomized study. Am J Rhinol Allergy 26(4):332–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Feng YF, Cai JQ, Zhang JY, Han XH (2011) A meta-analysis of primary dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation. Can J Ophthalmol 46(6):521–527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Unlu HH, Gunhan K, Baser EF, Songu M (2009) Long-term results in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: is intubation really required? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 140(4):589–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Royal College of Ophthalmologists (1999) Guideline for clinical governance in ophthalmology. RCO, London

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chan W, Selva D (2013) Ostium shrinkage after endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology 120:1693–1696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mann BS, Wormald PJ (2006) Endoscopic assessment of the DCR ostium after endoscopic surgery. Laryngoscope 116:1172–1174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ali MJ, Psaltis AJ, Ali MH, Wormald PJ (2014) Endoscopic assessment of the dacryocystorhinostomy ostium after powered endoscopic surgery: behavior beyond 4 weeks. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 43(2):152–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jordan DR, McDonald H (1993) Failed dacryocystorhinostomy: the sump syndrome. Ophthalmic Surg 24(10):692–693

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fayet B, Racy E, Assouline M (2004) Complications of standardized endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with unciformectomy. Ophthalmology 111(4):837–845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Yung MW, Hardman-Lea S (2002) Analysis of the results of surgical endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: effect of the level of obstruction. Br J Ophthalmol 86:792–794

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Chong KK, Lai FH, Ho M, Luk A, Wong BW, Young A (2013) Randomized trial on silicone intubation in endoscopic mechanical dacryocystorhinostomy (SEND) for primary nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmology 120(10):2139–2145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery and Biomedical Science, S.M. della Misericordia Hospital, University of Perugia, Via G. Dottori 1, 06156, Perugia, PG, Italy

    F. Longari, P. Dehgani Mobaraki, R. Lapenna & G. Ricci

  2. Section of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery and Biomedical Science, S.M. della Misericordia Hospital, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    A. L. Ricci & C. Cagini

Authors
  1. F. Longari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Dehgani Mobaraki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. L. Ricci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Lapenna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Cagini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Ricci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Dehgani Mobaraki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional guidelines on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Longari, F., Dehgani Mobaraki, P., Ricci, A.L. et al. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation: 4 years retrospective study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273, 2079–2084 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3876-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3876-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation