Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2011
External Versus Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy: A Retrospective Study.
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.
Jha K N, Ramalingam Wvbs
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: External dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) has been the standard surgery for nasolacrimal duct obstruction before the development of endoscopic DCR.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 103 patients with 109 cases (6 cases with bilateral disease) of nasolacrimal duct obstruction, of which 55 were treated with external DCR and 54 with endoscopic DCR. They were followed up for a minimum period of six months for surgical outcome.
RESULT: The mean age of the patients in both the groups was 30 years. The success rate defined as absence of epiphora in the external DCR group was 90.9% and 95 % in the endoscopic DCR group. Majority of the recurrence, 5 out of the 6 (83.3%) in the external DCR group occurred in the first two months of surgery, while one reported four months after the surgery. The problem of intraoperative hemorrhage encountered in the external DCR group was not faced in the endoscopic DCR group. Revision of DCR was indicated in 9.1 % of cases in external DCR group as compared to 5.5 % in the endoscopic group. Serious complications like keloid formation and cosmetically unacceptable scar were not noticed in the external DCR group. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhoea was not encountered in the endoscopic group.
CONCLUSION: Both the external DCR and the endoscopic DCR are effective surgical approaches for nasolacrimal duct obstruction with comparable success rate.
METHODS: This retrospective study included 103 patients with 109 cases (6 cases with bilateral disease) of nasolacrimal duct obstruction, of which 55 were treated with external DCR and 54 with endoscopic DCR. They were followed up for a minimum period of six months for surgical outcome.
RESULT: The mean age of the patients in both the groups was 30 years. The success rate defined as absence of epiphora in the external DCR group was 90.9% and 95 % in the endoscopic DCR group. Majority of the recurrence, 5 out of the 6 (83.3%) in the external DCR group occurred in the first two months of surgery, while one reported four months after the surgery. The problem of intraoperative hemorrhage encountered in the external DCR group was not faced in the endoscopic DCR group. Revision of DCR was indicated in 9.1 % of cases in external DCR group as compared to 5.5 % in the endoscopic group. Serious complications like keloid formation and cosmetically unacceptable scar were not noticed in the external DCR group. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) rhinorrhoea was not encountered in the endoscopic group.
CONCLUSION: Both the external DCR and the endoscopic DCR are effective surgical approaches for nasolacrimal duct obstruction with comparable success rate.