Endoscopic transcanalicular diode laser dacryocystorhinostomy: is it an alternative method to conventional external dacryocystorhinostomy?

PURPOSE

To compare the success rates of endoscopic transcanalicular diode laser dacryocystorhinostomy (EL-DCR) and external DCR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Operations were performed on 55 eyes of 54 patients who had distal nasolacrimal canal obstruction. External DCR was performed on 29 of the eyes and EL-DCR on 26 of them. Success was defined based on subjective relief of patients reported at their final examinations.

RESULTS

There were 23 women and 6 men in group 1 and 19 women and 6 men in group 2 (p = 0.77). The mean ages of groups were 45.24 ± 12.08 (range, 15-74) and 43.2 ± 17.01 (range, 11-72) years, respectively (p = 0.63). The mean follow-up times were 8.82 ± 5.51 (range, 3-18) and 7.12 ± 2.96 (range, 2-12) months, respectively in groups (p = 0.58). The success rates based on symptoms were measured at 25 of 29 (86%) and 17 of 25 (68%) for 2 groups. The difference in the success rates was higher but not found to be statistically significant (p = 0.202). The authors found various conditions related to nasal passage in 4 of 8 unsuccessful EL-DCR, including allergic rhinitis, nasal crust, silicone tube reaction, and unsuitable passage for endoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The success rate of EL-DCR was lower than that of the external DCR; however, no statistically significant difference was observed. Endoscopic transcanalicular diode laser DCR may be considered as an alternative method to external DCR with these results.