Eksternal Ve Endoskopik Dakriyosistorinostominin Karşılaştırılması
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
1999
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Turgut Özal Tıp Merkezi Dergisi
Erişim Hakkı
Attribution 3.0 United States
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Nazolakrimal kanal tıkanıklığı (NKT) sonucu gelişen epiforanın geniş olarak kabul gören iki tedavi modalitesi eksternal ya da endoskopik dakriyosistorinosto-midir (DSR). Amaç: 1 Ocak 1995 ile 1 Ocak 1999 arasındaki eksternal ve endoskopik endona-zal DSR sonuçlarını, komplikasyon ve operatif özelliklerini karşılaştırmak. Yöntem: Birinci gruptaki 79 unilateral dakriyosistitli hastaya (66 kadın, 15 erkek) silikon tüp entübasyonlu ya da entübasyonsuz klasik Dupuy-Dutemps-Bourget tek-niği ile primer eksternal DSR ve 33 kadın ve 3 erkekten oluşan 36 vakanın 51 gö-züne (15* bilateral) endoskopik primer endonazal çekiç-keski metodu ile DSR uy-gulandı. Bulgular: Postoperatif takip süresi 6 ile 48 ay arasındaydı (ortalama, 25 ay). Ortala-ma yaş 39.5 (4 ile 76) idi. Eksternal ve endoskopik çekiç-keski metodlu DSR başa-rı oranları sırasıyla %89.8 ve %88.2 idi. Eksternal grup ile karşılaştırıldığında en-doskopik çekiç-keski DSR'de daha az komplikasyon oranı ve minimal morbidite mevcuttu. Sonuç: Çekiç-keski yöntemli DSR, eksternal yaklaşıma göre pratik, daha az trav-matik, daha az zaman gerektLren ve kozmetLk olarak daha üstün bLr yöntemdLr. EndoskopLk DSR yöntemLnLn başarı oranı geleneksel eksternal yaklaşımlı DSR Lle benzerdLr ve Lntranazal patolojilerin simultane olarak düzeltilmesine de olanak sağlar.
Two widely accepted treatment modalities for epiphora resulting from nasolacrimal ductus (NLD) obstruction are external and endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). Aim: To compare the complications, operative features and results of external and video- endoscopic endonasal DCR performed from January 1st, 1995 to January 1st, 1999. Methods: External DCR with or without silicone tube intubation by Dupuy-Dutemps- Bourget technique was performed on 79 unilateral dacryocystitis patients (66 women and 13 men) in group 1 and endoscopic endonasal hammer-chisel DCR utilizing hammer-chiesel removal of bone located over the lacrimal sac on 51 eyes of 36 cases, 33 women and 3 men (15 bilateral patients) in group 2. Results: Follow-up period ranged from 6 to 48 months (mean, 25 months) postoperatively. Ages ranged from 4 to 76 years (mean, 38.5 years). Success rate of external and endoscopic hammer-chisel DCR was found to be 89.8°% and 88.2°%, respectively. Less complication rate was observed in endoscopic group with minimal morbidity and shorter operative time compared to the external approach. Conclusions: Hammer-chisel endoscopic DCR is practical, less traumatic, less time consuming and cosmetically more convenient than external approach. The success rate of the endoscopic DCR procedure is comparable to that of traditional external DCR and also allows simultaneous correction of the intranasal pathologies.
Two widely accepted treatment modalities for epiphora resulting from nasolacrimal ductus (NLD) obstruction are external and endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). Aim: To compare the complications, operative features and results of external and video- endoscopic endonasal DCR performed from January 1st, 1995 to January 1st, 1999. Methods: External DCR with or without silicone tube intubation by Dupuy-Dutemps- Bourget technique was performed on 79 unilateral dacryocystitis patients (66 women and 13 men) in group 1 and endoscopic endonasal hammer-chisel DCR utilizing hammer-chiesel removal of bone located over the lacrimal sac on 51 eyes of 36 cases, 33 women and 3 men (15 bilateral patients) in group 2. Results: Follow-up period ranged from 6 to 48 months (mean, 25 months) postoperatively. Ages ranged from 4 to 76 years (mean, 38.5 years). Success rate of external and endoscopic hammer-chisel DCR was found to be 89.8°% and 88.2°%, respectively. Less complication rate was observed in endoscopic group with minimal morbidity and shorter operative time compared to the external approach. Conclusions: Hammer-chisel endoscopic DCR is practical, less traumatic, less time consuming and cosmetically more convenient than external approach. The success rate of the endoscopic DCR procedure is comparable to that of traditional external DCR and also allows simultaneous correction of the intranasal pathologies.
Açıklama
Turgut Özal Tıp Merkezi Dergisi.6 (2) :1999. İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Dakriyosistorinostomi, eksternal, endonazal, çekiç-keski, Dacryocystorhinostomy, external, endoscopic, hammer-chiesel
Kaynak
İnönü Üniversitesi Turgut Özal Tıp Merkezi Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
6
Sayı
2
Künye
Çokkeser, Yaşar ; Evereklioğlu, Cem ;Er, Hamdi ;Gündüz, Abuzer ;Kalcıoğlu, Tayyar ;Özturan, Orhan ;Turgut Özal Tıp Merkezi Dergisi.6 (2) :1999. İnönü Üniversitesi, Malatya.
