Long-Term Results of Primary and Revision Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy at a Single Institution

Year 2025, Volume: 8 Issue: 1, 1 - 5, 20.04.2025

Büşra Kaplan Enes Ahmet Subay Nidanur Sinanoglu

Abstract

Objective: The treatment of nasolacrimal canal obstruction through endoscopic DCR is both e!ective and safe. Our
study aims to assess the preoperative factors in"uencing the success of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all consecutive endoscopic DCR procedures performed over a 5-year period from 2019 to 2024. All patients underwent a minimum 6-month follow-up after stent removal. Patient records were examined for demographic details, previous surgical procedures, reasons for failure, clinical and surgical characteristics, adjunctive procedures, and success rates at the #nal follow-up.
Results: Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (eDCR) was performed on a total of 58 patients, with a mean follow-up period of 31.88 ± 15.79 months (range, 6-60). Upon further examination of comorbid disease subtypes, a statisti- cally signi#cant relationship was observed between the presence of autoimmune diseases (Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Graves’ disease, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriasis) and the likelihood of undergoing revision surgery (P = .005). Of the revision endo-DCR group, 9 (75%) patients underwent concurrent endonasal surgery during their revision operation. Septoplasty was performed in 2 (16.6%) cases, and concha bullosa surgery was performed in 7 (58.4%) cases. A sta- tistically signi#cant di!erence was observed among the concurrent surgeries, particularly in terms of concha bullosa surgery (P = .001).
Conclusion: Understanding the factors correlated with endo-DCR failure can inform preoperative counseling and re#ne intraoperative surgical approaches for patients undergoing treatment for nasolacrimal canal obstruction.

Keywords

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) , failed DCR , revision DCR , long-term , autoimmune disease , smoking

References

• Reference 1. Jokinen' K, Kärjä' J. Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Arch Otolaryngol. 1974;100(1):41-44. [CrossRef]
• Reference 2. Korkut'AY, Teker'AM, Yazici'MZ, Kahya'V, Gedikli'O, Kayhan'FT. Surgical out- comes of primary and revision endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. J Crani- ofac Surg. 2010;21(6):1706-1708. [CrossRef]
• Reference 3. Leong' SC, MacEwen' CJ, White' PS. A systematic review of outcomes after dacryocystorhinostomy in adults. Am J RhinolAllergy. 2010;24(1):81-90. [CrossRef]
• 4. Dalgic' A, Ceylan' ME, Çelik' Ç, Aliyeva' A, Aksoy' GY, Edizer' DT. Outcomes of endoscopic powered revision dacryocystorhinostomy. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(7):1960-1962. [CrossRef]
• 5. Wormald' PJ. Powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(1):69-72. [CrossRef]
• 6. Ramakrishnan'VR, Hink'EM, Durairaj'VD, Kingdom'TT. Outcomes after endo- scopic dacryocystorhinostomy without mucosal "ap preservation. Am J Rhi- nol. 2007;21(6):753-757. [CrossRef]
• 7. Wormald'PJ, Kew'J, Van Hasselt'A. Intranasal anatomy of the nasolacrimal sac in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Otolaryngol.--Head Neck Surg. 2000;123(3):307-310. [CrossRef]
• 8. Roithmann' R, Burman' T, Wormald' P-J. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Braz J Orl. 2012;78(6):113-121. [CrossRef]
• 9. Sisto' M, Ribatti' D, Lisi' S. Organ #brosis and autoimmunity: the role of in"ammation in TGF!-dependent EMT. Biomolecules. 2021;11(2):310. [CrossRef]
• 10. Demarco'R, Strose'A, Araújo'M, Valera'FCP, Moribe'I, Anselmo-Lima'WT. Endo- scopic revision of external dacryocystorhinostomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;137(3):497-499. [CrossRef]
• 11. El-Guindy'A, Dorgham'A, Ghoraba'M. Endoscopic revision surgery for recur- rent epiphora occurring after external dacryocystorhinostomy. Ann Otol Rhi- nol Laryngol. 2000;109(4):425-430. [CrossRef]
• 12. Metson' R. The endoscopic approach for revision dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope. 1990;100(12):1344-1347. [CrossRef]
• 13. Tsirbas'A, Davis'G, Wormald'PJ. Revision dacryocystorhinostomy: a compari- son of endoscopic and external techniques. Am J Rhinol. 2005;19(3):322-325. [CrossRef]
• 14. Maini'S, Raghava'N, Youngs'R, et'al. Endoscopic endonasal laser versus endo- nasal surgical dacryocystorhinostomy for epiphora due to nasolacrimal duct obstruction: prospective, randomised, controlled trial. J Laryngol Otol. 2007;121(12):1170-1176. [CrossRef]
• 15. Zenk' J, Karatzanis' AD, Psychogios' G, et' al. Long-term results of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266(11):1733-1738. [CrossRef]
• 16. Mak'ST, Io'IY, Wong'AC. Prognostic factors for outcome of endoscopic dacryo- cystorhinostomy in patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251(5):1361-1367. [CrossRef]
• 17. Lehmann'AE, Scangas'GA, Jafari'A, Banks'CG, Fullerton'ZH, Metson'R. Predic- tors of long-term success and failure in primary and revision endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Wiley Online Library. 2020;10(3):374-380. [CrossRef]
• 18. Dolmetsch'AM. Nonlaser endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with adjunctive mitomycin C in nasolacrimal duct obstruction in adults. Ophthal- mology. 2010;117(5):1037-1040. [CrossRef]
• 19. Hull' S, Lalchan' S-A, Olver' JM. Success rates in powered endonasal revision surgery for failed dacryocystorhinostomy in a tertiary referral center. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;29(4):267-271. [CrossRef]
• 20. Choussy'O, Retout'A, Marie'JP, Cozlean'A, Dehesdin'D. Endoscopic revision of external dacryocystorhinostomy failure. Rhinology. 2010;48(1):104-107. [CrossRef]
• 21. Allen'K, Berlin'AJ. Dacryocystorhinostomy failure: association with nasolacri- mal silicone intubation. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. SLACK Incorporated Thorofare, NJ. 1989;20(7):486-489. [CrossRef]
• 22. Anderson'RL, Edwards'JJ. Indications, complications and results with silicone stents. Ophthalmology. 1979;86(8):1474-1487. [CrossRef]
• 23. Longari' F, Dehgani Mobaraki' P, Ricci' AL, Lapenna' R, Cagini' C, Ricci' G. Endo- scopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation: 4 years retrospective study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273(8):2079-2084. [CrossRef]
• 24. Gauba'V, Islam'T, Saleh'GM, Zuberbuhler'B, Vize'C. The practice of dacryocys- torhinostomy (DCR) surgery by ophthalmologists in the United Kingdom (UK). Orbit. 2008;27(4):279-283. [CrossRef]
• 25. Ali' MJ, Psaltis' AJ, Wormald' PJ. Long-term outcomes in revision powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Wiley Online Library. 2014:1016-1019.
• 26. Kingdom'TT, Barham'HP, Durairaj'VD. Long-term outcomes after endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy without mucosal "ap preservation. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(1):12-17. [CrossRef]
• 27. Kumar'S, Mishra'AK, Sethi'A, et'al. Comparing outcomes of the standard tech- nique of endoscopic DCR with its modi#cations: a retrospective analysis. Otolaryngol.--head neck surg. 2019;160(2):347-354. [CrossRef]
• 28. Mathew'MRK, McGuiness'R, Webb'LA, Murray'SB, Esakowitz'L. Patient satisfac- tion in our initial experience with endonasal endoscopic non-laser dacryocys- torhinostomy. Orbit. 2004;23(2):77-85. [CrossRef]
• 29. Mansour'K, Blanksma'LJ, Vrakking'H, Jager'PL. Scintigraphic evaluation for tear drainage, after dacryocystorhino-stomy, in relation to patient satisfaction. Eye (Lond). 2008;22(3):414-419. [CrossRef]