ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties · 2021
Possibility of Pseudo-Obstruction in Lacrimal Canalicular Obstruction Diagnosed with Dacryocystography.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Shim Woo Sub, Cho Min Jai, Kang Young, Lee Seok Hee, Lee Joo-Yeon, Jung Hahn Jin
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is the treatment of choice for patients with lacrimal drainage system obstruction. Dacryocystography (DCG) is one of the most common preoperative studies and considered as a useful test demonstrating the anatomy of lacrimal drainage systems.
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of DCG for canalicular obstruction and to compare surgical outcomes between true-obstruction versus pseudo-obstruction diagnosed with DCG.
METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on 45 consecutive patients with lacrimal canalicular obstruction who had underwent endoscopic DCR with silicone tube insertion from January 2009 to December 2014 at a single tertiary hospital. A review of medical records included demographic data, preoperative symptoms and signs, results of intraoperative canalicular probing, and surgical outcomes including the postoperative symptom improvement and endoscopic finding.
RESULTS: Of 45 patients, 34 patients (75.6%) had true-canalicular obstructions and 11 patients (24.4%) had pseudo-canalicular obstructions. The success rate of endoscopic DCR was 50% (17 of 34) in cases with true-canalicular obstruction while 90.9% (10 of 11) in pseudo-canalicular obstruction (p value <0.05). No intraoperative or postoperative complications including sinusitis or synechia were found.
CONCLUSIONS: About a quarter of lacrimal canalicular obstruction cases diagnosed with DCG seem to be pseudo-obstruction. The success rate of endoscopic DCR in pseudo-canalicular obstruction is similar to that of saccal and nasolacrimal ductal obstruction.
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of DCG for canalicular obstruction and to compare surgical outcomes between true-obstruction versus pseudo-obstruction diagnosed with DCG.
METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on 45 consecutive patients with lacrimal canalicular obstruction who had underwent endoscopic DCR with silicone tube insertion from January 2009 to December 2014 at a single tertiary hospital. A review of medical records included demographic data, preoperative symptoms and signs, results of intraoperative canalicular probing, and surgical outcomes including the postoperative symptom improvement and endoscopic finding.
RESULTS: Of 45 patients, 34 patients (75.6%) had true-canalicular obstructions and 11 patients (24.4%) had pseudo-canalicular obstructions. The success rate of endoscopic DCR was 50% (17 of 34) in cases with true-canalicular obstruction while 90.9% (10 of 11) in pseudo-canalicular obstruction (p value <0.05). No intraoperative or postoperative complications including sinusitis or synechia were found.
CONCLUSIONS: About a quarter of lacrimal canalicular obstruction cases diagnosed with DCG seem to be pseudo-obstruction. The success rate of endoscopic DCR in pseudo-canalicular obstruction is similar to that of saccal and nasolacrimal ductal obstruction.