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 endonasal with external dacryocystorhinostomy in revision cases.
    Author: Korkut AY, Teker AM, Ozsutcu M, Askiner O, Gedikli O.
    Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2011 Mar; 268(3):377-81. PubMed ID: 20652292.
    Abstract:
    The objective is to compare the success rates of revision endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (END-DCR) with revision external dacryocystorhinostomy (EXT-DCR). The present retrospective study was conducted between January 2002 and July 2009. Seventy-four consecutive patients (17 males, 57 females) who had epiphora or recurrent dacryocystitis after a previous failed EXT-DCR procedure were enrolled in the study. The END-DCR group consisted of 43 patients (10 males, 33 females) who underwent 44 END-DCRs, whereas the EXT-DCR group included 31 patients (7 males, 24 females) who underwent 31 dacryocystorhinostomies (DCRs). Successful DCR was defined as relief of symptoms as demonstrated by saline irrigation at the last post-operative visit. Further nasal surgery was performed in 18 (40.9%) eyes in the END-DCR group. The average follow-up time for the END-DCR and EXT-DCR groups was 11 and 9 months, respectively. The success rate was 77.4% (24/31 DCRs) in the END-DCR group, and 84.1% (37/44 DCRs) in the EXT-DCR group. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding overall success (p = 0.465). END-DCR is as safe and efficient technique as external approach with low complication rates in revision cases. END-DCR yields good esthetic and functional results and has a success rate similar to that of the external approach.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]