European journal of ophthalmology · 2004
Long-term follow-up outcomes of nonlaser intranasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: how suitable and useful are conventional surgical instruments?
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.
Gurler B, San I
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the long-term follow-up outcomes of nonlaser intranasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (IEDCR) using a nasal endoscope and conventional surgical instruments available in all operating rooms, the advantages of this technique, and the usability and suitability of conventional instruments.
METHODS: Twenty-seven IEDCRs were performed in combination with bicanalicular silicone intubation on 24 patients with primary nasolacrimal sac or duct obstruction who had undergone no previous procedures. Ablation of the nasal mucosa was performed with a sickle blade (12 operations) or insulated sickle blade allowing simultaneous intranasal monopolar cauterization (15 operations); a bony window was opened with a drill; and ablation of the medial wall of the lacrimal sac was performed with a sickle blade, Blakesley forceps, and Bellucci ear microscissors. Revision intranasal endoscopic surgery was performed in unsuccessful cases.
RESULTS: Patients were followed up for 35 to 71 months (average 49.3 months). In 7 (25.9%) of the 27 IEDCRs, nasolacrimal obstruction recurred within 3 months. Success rates were as follows: 66.7% (8 operations) for the first 12 operations; 80% (12 operations) for the second 15 operations; and 74.1% overall. There were seven cases of surgical failure; revision surgery was successful in four, increasing the overall success rate to 88.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: IEDCR can be performed with acceptable facility with standard conventional surgical instruments (sickle blade, endoscopic forceps, and scissors) and surgical tools (drill, monopolar cautery) found in all operating rooms, and the nonlaser intranasal endoscopic approach may be a reasonable alternative to the laser assisted surgery approach.
METHODS: Twenty-seven IEDCRs were performed in combination with bicanalicular silicone intubation on 24 patients with primary nasolacrimal sac or duct obstruction who had undergone no previous procedures. Ablation of the nasal mucosa was performed with a sickle blade (12 operations) or insulated sickle blade allowing simultaneous intranasal monopolar cauterization (15 operations); a bony window was opened with a drill; and ablation of the medial wall of the lacrimal sac was performed with a sickle blade, Blakesley forceps, and Bellucci ear microscissors. Revision intranasal endoscopic surgery was performed in unsuccessful cases.
RESULTS: Patients were followed up for 35 to 71 months (average 49.3 months). In 7 (25.9%) of the 27 IEDCRs, nasolacrimal obstruction recurred within 3 months. Success rates were as follows: 66.7% (8 operations) for the first 12 operations; 80% (12 operations) for the second 15 operations; and 74.1% overall. There were seven cases of surgical failure; revision surgery was successful in four, increasing the overall success rate to 88.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: IEDCR can be performed with acceptable facility with standard conventional surgical instruments (sickle blade, endoscopic forceps, and scissors) and surgical tools (drill, monopolar cautery) found in all operating rooms, and the nonlaser intranasal endoscopic approach may be a reasonable alternative to the laser assisted surgery approach.