These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison of outcomes between nonlaser endoscopic endonasal and external dacryocystorhinostomy: single-center experience and a review of British trends.
    Author: Leong SC, Karkos PD, Burgess P, Halliwell M, Hampal S.
    Journal: Am J Otolaryngol; 2010; 31(1):32-7. PubMed ID: 19944897.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes between nonlaser endonasal endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) in a district general hospital in the United Kingdom. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted retrospective case notes review and postal questionnaire. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Case notes of patients who had DCR from August 2003 to August 2007 were reviewed. All patients were sent a questionnaire that included a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Seventy patients were identified (35 external, 35 endoscopic). At discharge, 94% of external DCR patients reported being asymptomatic or improved compared with 86% for endoscopic DCR. The average VAS score for external DCR was 8.9 compared with 7.5 for endoscopic DCR (z = 2.1, P < .05). The average VAS score for external DCR was consistently higher than endoscopic DCR up to 30 months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: External DCR offers better outcomes than endoscopic DCR. Endoscopic DCR is associated with fewer reported complications. A postal questionnaire can be a good alternative method of assessing long-term outcomes rather than relying solely on protracted clinic follow-up. There are few published endoscopic DCR results from the UK, and formalized training must be introduced.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]