Endoscopic and Radiologic Findings in Failed Dacryocystorhinostomy: Teaching Pearls for Success.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
Although several studies have commented on causes of dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) failure, detailed description of anatomical findings in such cases remains insufficient.
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was primarily to analyze radiologic, endoscopic, and intraoperative findings in patients presenting with failed DCR and secondarily to assess the outcome of revision endoscopic DCR (endo-DCR) carried out at our institution.
METHODS
Twenty-four failed DCRs presenting to our tertiary care center were retrospectively analyzed. Data collection included patients' history, diagnostic, and management data, as well as thorough analysis of sinonasal CT scans, along with endoscopic and intraoperative findings. Outcome was also assessed in 21 cases with revision endo-DCR performed.
RESULTS
The anterior part of uncinate process was not previously removed in 15 sides (62.5%), with unopened agger nasi in 13 sides (54.2%). The lacrimal bone was detected covering the posterior sac despite removal of the anterior ascending process of maxilla in 9 sides (37.5%). Rhinostoma was anterior to lacrimal sac in 2 sides (8.3%) and was below the sac in 7 sides (29.2%). Fibrous membrane covered the rhinostoma despite removal of all sac-overlying bones in 6 sides (25%). Other findings included intranasal adhesions, septal deviation, lateralized middle turbinate, granulation tissue, foreign body reaction, and chronic sinusitis. Nineteen of the 21 revision endo-DCRs were successful (90.5%).
CONCLUSION
This study provides a precise anatomical description of findings in cases of failed DCR. Such information is paramount in helping surgeons enhance their learning curve, refine the surgical technique, and improve patients' outcome.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.