Evaluation of endoscopic examination and paranasal computed tomography findings in failed dacryocystorhinostomy patients

Year 2017, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 139 - 143, 28.11.2017

Emine Güven Şakalar Hikmet Başmak Hüseyin Gürsoy Hamdi Çaklı

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to
evaluate endoscopic and paranasal computed tomography (PNCT) findings in
cases of failed dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR).




Methods: This
study included 30 cases of failed DCR (18 females, 12 males; mean age:
49.9±18.9 years) and 30 successful DCR patients (20 females, 9 males;
mean age: 56.3±15.9 years). The reasons for the recurrence of the
disease were evaluated using preoperative endoscopic examination and
PNCT findings.




Results:
Endoscopic pathology was identified in 24 out of 30 failed cases (80%),
while endoscopic pathology was identified in 12 out of 30 successful
cases (40%) (p<0.05). PNCT revealed nasal pathology in 24 out of 30
failed cases (80%), and in 15 out of 30 successful cases (50%)
(p<0.05).




Conclusion:
Endonasal and sinonasal pathologies may be associated with DCR failure.
Before the commencement of revision DCR, endoscopic examination and PNCT
may provide valuable information regarding the underlying etiology.

Keywords

Dacryocystorhinostomy, endoscopic examination, failed, nasal endoscopy, paranasal computed tomography (PNCT)

References

• Ozkaya A, Gurcan Z, Ozusan S. Comparing pimary external dacryocystorhinostomy operations with or without silicone tube intubation. [Article in Turkish]. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Ophthalmology 2007;16:77–81. 2. Caldwell GW. Two new operations for obstruction of the nasal duct. NY Med J 1893;57:581–2. 3. Yakopson VS, Flanagan JC, Ahn D, Luo BP. Dacryocystorhinos- tomy: history, evolution and future directions. Saudi J Ophthalmol 2011;25:37–49. 4. Yigit O, Samanc›o¤lu M, Taskin U, Ceylan S, Eltutar K, Yener M. External and endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy in chronic dacry- ocystitis: comparison of results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 264:879–85. 5. Rice DH. Endoscopik intranasal dacryocystorhinostomy results in four patients. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990;116:1061. 6. Metson R, Woog JJ, Puliafito CA. Endoscopik laser dacryocys- torhinostomy. Laryngoscope 1994;104:269–74. 7. Konuk O, Kurtulmusoglu M, Knatova Z, Unal M. Unsuccessful lacrimal surgery: causative factors and results of surgical manage- ment in a tertiary referral center. Ophthalmologica 2010;224:361– 6. 8. Onerci M. Dacryocystorhinostomy. Diagnosis and treatment of nasolacrimal canal obstructions. Rhinology 2002;40:49–65. 9. Karim R, Ghabrial R, Lynch TF, Tang B. A comparison of exter- nal and endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Clinical Ophthalmology 2011;5: 979–89. 10. Balbaba M, Toplu Y, Ulas F. Association of nasolacrimal canal obstruction and nasal pathologies. [Article in Turkish]. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Ophthalmology 2013;22:5–9. 11. Piédrola Maroto D, Franco Sánchez J, Reyes Eldblom R, Monje Vega E, Conde Jiménez M, Ortiz Rueda M. Endonasal versus trans-canalicular endoscopic dacriocystorhinostomy using diode laser. Surgical techniques and outcomes. [Article in Spanish] Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2008;59:283–7. 12. Pittore B, Tan N, Salis G, Brennan PA, Puxeddu R. Endoscopic transnasal dacryocystorhinostomy without stenting: results in 64 consecutive procedures. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2010;30:294– 8. 13. Hart RH, Powrie S, Rose GE. Primary external dacryocystorhi- nostomy. In: Cohen AJ, Mercandetti M, Brazzo BG, editors. The lacrimal system: diagnosis, management and treatment. New York, NY: Springer; 2006. p. 127–43. 14. Welham RA, Wulc AE. Management of unsuccessful lacrimal sur- gery. Br J Ophthalmol 1987;71:152–7. 15. Saratziotis A, Emanuelli E. Osteoma of the medial wall of the max- illary sinus: a primary cause of nasolacrimal duct obstruction and review of the literature. Case Rep Otolaryngol 2014;348459. 16. Lee J, Choi SY, Lee H, Chang M, Park M, Baek S. The clinical effectiveness of transcanalicular diode laser-assisted revision sur- gery for failed endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Br J Ophthalmol 2015;99:1130–3. 17. Rose GE. The lacrimal paradox: toward a greater understanding of success in lacrimal surgery. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;20: 262–5. 18. Weidenbecher M, Hosemann W, Buhr W. Endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: results in 56 patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1994;103:363–7. 19. Onerci M, Orhan M, Ogretmeno¤lu O, ‹rkec M. Long-term results and reasons for failure of intranasal endoscopic dacryocys- torhinostomy. Acta Otolaryngol 2000;120:319–22. 20. Basmak H, Cakl› H, Sahin A, et al. Comparison of endocanalicu- lar laser dacryocystorhinostomy with and without endonasal pro- cedures. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011;249:737–43. 21. Golan S, Leibovitch I, Landsberg R. Unexpected pathologies in patients referred for endoscopic DCR. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:3053–8. 22. Ricardo LA, Nakanishi M, Fava AS. Transillumination-guided study of the endoscopic anatomy of the lacrimal fossa. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2010;76:34–9. 23. Aydin S, Acikgoz C, Altin G, Demir MG. Role of nasal and paranasal sinus pathologies in failed external dacryocystorhinosto- my. National Journal of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery 2015;3:4–7. 24. Hurwitz JJ, Edward Kassel EE, Jaffer N. The lacrimal system. In: Hurwitz JJ, editor. Computed tomography and combined CT- dacryocystography (CT-DCG). New York, NY: Raven Press; 1996. p. 83–5.