Publication:
Outcome comparison between transcanalicular and external dacryocystorhinostomy

dc.contributor.coauthorYeniad, Barış
dc.contributor.coauthorCeylan, Erdinç
dc.contributor.coauthorYıldız-Taş, Ayşe
dc.contributor.coauthorKozer-Bilgin, Lale
dc.contributor.departmentN/A
dc.contributor.kuauthorUludağ, Günay
dc.contributor.kuprofileDoctor
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteN/A
dc.contributor.yokidN/A
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-09T22:59:32Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.description.abstractAim: To compare the outcomes achieved with external dacryocystorhinostomy (EX-DCR) and transcanalicular dacryocystorhinostomy (TC-DCR) using a multidiode laser in patients with bilateral nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO). Methods: This prospective study was conducted on 38 eyes of 19 patients with bilateral NLDO. Simultaneous bilateral surgery was performed on all patients. TC-DCR (Group 1) with a diode laser was used in the right eye, and EX-DCR (Group 2) was used in the left eye. All patients were placed under general anesthesia. Routine follow ups were scheduled at 1wk; 1, 3, 6 and 12mo postoperative intervals. Objective (lacrimal system irrigation) and subjective [tearing, irritation, pain, discharge and visual analogue scale (VAS) score] outcomes were evaluated. Results: The overall objective success rate at 12mo was 73.7% (14/19) in Group 1 and 89.5 % (17/19) in Group 2. This difference was statistically significant. There were no significant between group differences in the subjective results, such as tearing, pain and irritation. Only the discharge scores were found to be significantly higher in Group 1 compared to Group 2 at the 1y follow up. The average VAS score was 6.8 in Group 1 and 8.7 in Group 2, with no statistically significant differences. Conclusion: Although TC-DCR allows surgeons to perform a minimally invasive and safe procedure, EX-DCR offers better objective and subjective outcomes than TC-DCR.
dc.description.indexedbyWoS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.issue2
dc.description.openaccessNO
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuN/A
dc.description.volume8
dc.identifier.doi10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.02.25
dc.identifier.eissn2227-4898
dc.identifier.issn2222-3959
dc.identifier.quartileQ3
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.02.25
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/7910
dc.identifier.wos352754100026
dc.keywordsDacryocystorhinostomy
dc.keywordsDiode lasers
dc.keywordsEpiphora
dc.keywordsLasers
dc.keywordsTranscanalicular endocanalicular laser dacryocystorhinostomy
dc.keywordsDiode-laser
dc.keywordsEndoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy
dc.keywordsEndonasal dacryocystorhinostomy
dc.keywordsPatient satisfaction
dc.keywordsAssisted revision
dc.keywordsDuct obstruction
dc.keywordsSurgery
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherIJO Press
dc.sourceInternational Journal of Ophthalmology
dc.subjectOphthalmology
dc.titleOutcome comparison between transcanalicular and external dacryocystorhinostomy
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.authoridN/A
local.contributor.kuauthorUludağ, Günay

Files