Comparison of Piezosurgery and Hammer-Chisel in Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy

Çukurova, İbrahim; Bulğurcu, Suphi; Arslan, İlker Burak; Dikilitaş, Bünyamin

doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000004602

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, 30% of all patients underwent septum intervention with endonasal DCR; this result is consistent with that in the literature. Considering that septum intervention performed during surgery facilitates the EE-DCR procedure, it may have a negative effect on the functional success (17) . In this study, in the first set of cases, the need for septoplasty was more, and it decreased with increasing level of experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy learning curve

Vatansever¹,

Aydın²,

Dinç³

et al. 2022

ABO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare the learning curves of the specialists in two different fields without previous endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy experience as well as to reveal the related complications with surgical success rates. Methods: We retrospectively investigated 90 patients who received consecutive endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with mucosa preservation by an ophthalmologist (Group 1, n=45) and an otorhinolaryngologist (Group 2, n=45) between October 2017 and October 2019. Patients who were admitted with epiphora complaints and diagnosed with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction through lacrimal irrigation test and aged >18 years with at least 6 months of follow-up were included in the study. In all cases, additional pathologies such as septum deviation were evaluated by performing maxillofacial imaging. Patients' medical records were evaluated in terms of surgery duration, complications, and functional achievements. Results: The mean surgical duration of the patients in Group-2 was 36.27 ± 11.61 min, while it was 43.62 ± 16.89 min in Group-1; the difference was statistically significant (p=0.018). Functional achievements in Group 1 was 84.4% (73.3% in the first set of 15 cases, 93.3% in the last set of 15 cases) in Group 2; this rate was 88.9% (80% in the first set of 15 cases, 93.3% in the last set of 15 cases), and the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.53). Septum intervention in addition to endoscopic surgery in both the groups (p=0.03, p=0.005, respectively) and intense bleeding during surgery (for both the groups, p<0.0001) significantly decreased the functional success. Conclusion: Endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy, performed after the necessary training, can provide high success and low complication rates when even conducted by ophthalmologists who are unfamiliar with endoscopic surgery after an experience of 30 cases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy learning curve

Vatansever¹,

Aydın²,

Dinç³

et al. 2022

ABO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 1989, McDonough and Meiring described the first modern endoscopic endonasal DCR procedure. Since then, instruments, visualization, and surgical techniques have evolved to improve endoscopic endonasal DCR (EDCR) [ 3 – 6 ], which has emerged as a standard method over the past decade. Moreover, the surgical success rates of EDCRs and external DCRs are now equivalent, according to the findings of several studies, and with better cosmetic results reported for EDCR [ 7 – 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without mucosal flap—is there any difference?

Zloto

Koval

Yakirevich

et al. 2019

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The nasal mucosa is sacrificed in conventional endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomies (EDCRs). Some surgeons, however, modify the technique by elevating a mucosal flap prior to creating the osteotomy with the aim of preserving the mucosa. To our knowledge, no clear-cut benefit of a mucosal flap has been established. The aim of this study is to examine the differences in surgical techniques and success rates of EDCRs with and without mucosal flap preservation. Methods We carried out a medical record review of all patients who underwent primary EDCR at the Goldschleger Eye Institute from October 2009 to October 2017. The following data were retrieved from the medical database and analyzed: patient demographics (age at diagnosis and gender), medical history, examination findings, surgical details, postoperative success, complications, and follow-up. Results A total of 107 patients who underwent 117 EDCRs participated in the study. Fifty-one patients comprised the group without a mucosal flap and 56 patients comprised the group with mucosal flap preservation. The medical history, presenting complaints, and preoperative examination findings were similar for both groups. The surgical success rate was not significantly different between the groups (82.1% without flap vs. 86.8% with flap, P = 0.478, Chi-square). Conclusion The findings of this comparison of EDCRs with and without mucosal flap preservation in a large patient population revealed no differences in surgical success or complications rates between the two procedures and, therefore, no benefit for adding flap preservation to conventional EDCRs.

show abstract

Comparison of Piezosurgery and Hammer-Chisel in Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy

Abstract: Piezosurgery causes shorter operation time, less recurrence, and less pain when compared with hammer-chisel.

Cited by 2 publications

References 13 publications

Endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy learning curve

Endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy learning curve

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without mucosal flap—is there any difference?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About