Comparative external versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: Results in 115 patients (130 eyes)

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorwosidEvereklioğlu, Cem/A-5370-2018
dc.contributor.authorCokkeser, Y
dc.contributor.authorEverelkioglu, C
dc.contributor.authorEr, H
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-04T20:12:07Z
dc.date.available2024-08-04T20:12:07Z
dc.date.issued2000
dc.departmentİnönü Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Epiphora is an annoying symptom, embarrassing the patient both socially and functionally. The two widely accepted treatment modalities of epiphora resulting from obstruction of the nasolacrimal ductus are external and endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the results, operative time, and complications of external and videoendoscopic endonasal DCR performed between December 1994 and December 1998, METHODS: In group 1, conventional primary external DCR with or without silicone tube intubation was performed in 79 patients (66 women and 13 men) with unilateral dacryocystitis, In group 2, endoscopic primary endonasal DCR with hammer-chisel removal of bone located over the lacrimal sac was performed in 51 eyes of 36 patients, 33 women and 3 men (15 bilateral procedures). RESULTS: The follow-up period was 6 to 48 months (mean 25 months) after surgery. The age range was from 4 to 76 years (mean 38.5 years). The success rates of external and endoscopic hammer-chisel DCR were found to be 89.8% and 88.2%, respectively. A lower complication rate was observed in the endoscopic group, with minimal morbidity and shorter operative time compared with the external approach. CONCLUSIONS: Hammer-chisel endoscopic DCR is practical, less traumatic, less time-consuming, and cosmetically more convenient than the external approach. The success rate of the endoscopic DCR procedure is comparable with that of traditional external DCR, and it also allows simultaneous correction of any intranasal pathology.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1067/mhn.2000.105470
dc.identifier.endpage491en_US
dc.identifier.issn0194-5998
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.pmid11020191en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-0033776659en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityN/Aen_US
dc.identifier.startpage488en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1067/mhn.2000.105470
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11616/93220
dc.identifier.volume123en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000089833100025en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMosby, Incen_US
dc.relation.ispartofOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgeryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectEndonasal Laser Dacryocystorhinostomyen_US
dc.subjectNasolacrimal Duct Obstructionen_US
dc.subjectIntranasal Dacryocystorhinostomyen_US
dc.subjectTransnasal Dacryocystorhinostomyen_US
dc.subjectAssisted Dacryocystorhinostomyen_US
dc.subjectLacrimal Surgeryen_US
dc.subjectSystemen_US
dc.subjectManagementen_US
dc.titleComparative external versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: Results in 115 patients (130 eyes)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu