Derya, KutukdeDemirel, SonerDoganay, SelimOrman, GozdeCumurcu, TongabayGunduz, Abuzer2024-08-042024-08-0420130740-93031537-2677https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0b013e31826b76a4https://hdl.handle.net/11616/95935Purpose: 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. (Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;29:15-17)eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess[No Keywords]Article29115172312853510.1097/IOP.0b013e31826b76a42-s2.0-84872975776Q2WOS:000313547400021Q3