Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction

Alim, Sait; Deniz Demir, Helin; GÖKTAŞ, Göksel; Somuk, Battal Tahsin; TAŞKIRAN, Burcu; soyalıç, harun; sapmaz, emrah

Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction

Battal Tahsin SOMUK, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi)

Sait ALİM, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Göz Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)

Emrah SAPMAZ, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Kulak Burun Boğaz Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)

Helin Deniz DEMİR, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Göz Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)

Burcu TAŞKIRAN, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Göz Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)

Göksel GÖKTAŞ, (Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Kulak Burun Boğaz Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, Tokat, Türkiye)

Harun SOYALIÇ (Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Kulak Burun Boğaz Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, Kırşehir, Türkiye)

Türk Otorinolarengoloji Arşivi

2 0

Yıl: 2016 Cilt: 54 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 99 - 104 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction

Öz:

Amaç: Endoskopik ve eksternal dakriyosistorinostomi (DSR) ameliyat sonuçlarımızın karşılaştırılması ve hasta memnuniyetinin değerlendirilmesi. Yöntemler: Çalışmaya 46 (35 kadın, 11 erkek) endoskopik DSR ve 43 (37 kadın, 6 erkek) eksternal-DSR uygulanan hasta dahil edildi. Ameliyat başarısı objektif ve subjektif olarak değerlendirildi. Nazolakrimal kanaldan verilen salin solüsyonun endoskopi ile objektif olarak burundan gelişi değerlendirildi. Subjektif değerlendirme hastaların epiforalarının sorgulanması ile değerlendirildi. Ameliyat başarısının değerlendirilmesine ilaveten her iki hasta grubuna sonuç değerlendirme ve memnuniyet anketi uygulandı. Bulgular: Yaş ve cinsiyet açısından her iki grup arasında istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı bir fark yoktu (sırasıyla p=0.486, p=0.23). Ancak her iki grupta kadınların sayısı erkeklere göre daha yüksekti ve bu istatistiksel açıdan anlamlıydı (endoskopik DSR p=0.01, eksternal DSR p=0.001). Postoperatif kanama ve punktum hasarı açısından karşılaştırıldığında her iki grup arasında istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı bir fark saptanmadı. Başarı oranı endoskopik DSR grubunda %84.7 iken eksternal DSR grubunda %90.6 idi, ancak her iki grup arasında istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı fark yoktu (p=0.397). Her iki gruba yöneltilen anket sonucunda; ameliyattan genel memnuniyet oranı açısından gruplar arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı (p=0.397). Sonuç: Literatürdeki birçok çalışmada iki grup için verilen sonuçlar çalışmamızda elde edilenlere benzerdir. Her iki tekniğin avantajları ve dezavantajları mevcuttur. Hangi yöntem tercih edilirse edilsin çalış- mamıza göre fonksiyonel başarı elde edilmesi hasta memnuniyetini belirleyen esas faktördür.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Kulak, Burun, Boğaz

Endoskopik ve Eksternal Dakriyosistorinostomi Sonuçlarının Karşılaştırılması ve Hasta Memnuniyetinin Analizi

Öz:

Objective: Comparison of endoscopic and externaldacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) results and evaluationof patients’ satisfaction.Methods: Forty six (35 females and 11 males) patientswho underwent endoscopic DCR and 43 (37females and six males) who underwent external DCRwere included. Surgical success was objectively andsubjectively assessed. The nasolacrimal duct was irrigatedby a saline solution, and the saline solution wasobjectively visualized by endoscopy from the nose.Subjective assessment was performed asking the patients'epiphora. In addition to evaluating the successof the operation, satisfaction and result surveys wereadministered to the two groups.Results: There was no statistically significant differencebetween the two groups in terms of age andsex (respectively p=0.486, p=0.23). However, thenumber of females was higher than the numberof males in the two groups, and the difference wasstatistically significant (endoscopic-DCR p=0.01,external-DCR p=0.001). There was no statisticallysignificant difference between the two groups interms of postoperative bleeding and punctum damage.The success rate was 84.7% in the endoscopicDCR group and 90.6% in the external DCR group.There was no statistically significant difference in thesuccess rate between the two groups (p=0.397). Thesurvey results revealed that there was no statisticallysignificant difference between the two groups interms of patient satisfaction (p=0.397).Conclusion: The results of many studies in the literatureshow operation success rates between the twogroups that are similar to ours. Both techniques haveadvantages and disadvantages. Independent of thepreferred procedure, our results show that functionalsuccess mainly determines patient satisfaction.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Kulak, Burun, Boğaz

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Grob SR, Campbell A, Lefebvre DR, Yoon MK. External versus endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2015; 55: 51-62. [CrossRef ]
2. Bartley GB. The pros and cons of laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1994; 117: 103-6. [CrossRef ]
3. Savino G, Battendieri R, Traina S, Corbo G, D'Amico G, Gari M, et al. External vs. endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: has the current view changed? Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2014; 34: 29-35.
4. Dolman PJ. Comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy with nonlaser endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology 2003; 110: 78-84. [CrossRef ]
5. Tarbet KJ, Custer PL. External dacryocystorhinostomy. Surgical success, patient satisfaction, and economic cost. Ophthalmology 1995; 102: 1065-70. [CrossRef ]
6. Huang J, Malek J, Chin D, Snidvongs K, Wilcsek G, Tumuluri K, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis on outcomes for endoscopic versus external dacryocystorhinostomy. Orbit 2014; 33: 81-90. [CrossRef]
7. Mekonnen W, Adamu Y. Outcome of external dacryocystorhinostomy in Ethiopian patients. Ethiop Med J 2009; 47: 221-6.
8. Mantynen J, Yoshitsugu M, Rautiainen M. Results of dacryocystorhinostomy in 96 patients. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1997; 529: 187-9. [CrossRef ]
9. Ben Simon GJ, Joseph J, Lee S, Schwarcz RM, McCann JD, Goldberg RA. External versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction in a tertiary referral center. Ophthalmology 2005; 112: 1463-8. [CrossRef ]
10. Çukurova I, Özkul D, Arslan İB, Ciğer E, Aydın M. Endoskopik dakriyosistorinostomi sonuçlarımız. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2005; 43: 28-31.
11. Whittet HB, Shun-Shin GA, Awdry P. Functional endoscopic transnasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Eye (Lond) 1993; 7: 545-9. [CrossRef]
12. Ozer S, Ozer PA. Endoscopic vs external dacryocystorhinostomy-comparison from the patients' aspect. Int J Ophthalmol 2014; 7: 689-96.
13. Cokkeser Y, Evereklioglu C, Er H. Comparative external versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: results in 115 patients (130 eyes). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 123: 488-91. [CrossRef ]
14. Massaro BM, Gonnering RS, Harris GJ. Endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. A new approach to nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Arch Ophthalmol 1990; 108: 1172-6. [CrossRef ]
15. Devoto MH, Zaffaroni MC, Bernardini FP, de Conciliis C. Postoperative evaluation of skin incision in external dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 20: 358-61. [CrossRef ]
16. Davies BW, McCracken MS, Hawes MJ, Hink EM, Durairaj VD, Pelton RW. Tear trough incision for external dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 31: 278-81. [CrossRef ]
17. Gauba V. External versus endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in a specialized lacrimal surgery center. Saudi J Ophthalmol 2014; 28: 36-9. [CrossRef ]
18. Lee DW, Chai CH, Loon SC. Primary external dacryocystorhinostomy versus primary endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a review. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2010; 38: 418-26. [CrossRef ]
19. Allen KM, Berlin AJ, Levine HL. Intranasal endoscopic analysis of dacrocystorhinostomy failure. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 4: 143-5. [CrossRef ]
20. Fayet B, Racy E, Assouline M. Complications of standardized endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with unciformectomy. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 837-45. [CrossRef ]
21. Karim R, Ghabrial R, Lynch T, Tang B. A comparison of external and endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Clin Ophthalmol 2011; 5: 979-89. [CrossRef ]
22. Becker BB. Dacryocystorhinostomy without flaps. Ophthalmic Surg 1988; 19: 419-27.
23. Hehar SS, Jones NS, Sadiq SA, Downes RN. Endoscopic holmium:- YAG laser dacryocystorhinostomy-safe and effective as a day-case procedure. J Laryngol Otol 1997; 111: 1056-9. [CrossRef ]
24. Duwal S, Saiju R. Outcomes of external dacryocystorhinostomy and endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy in the management of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Nepal J Ophthalmol 2015; 7: 39-46. [CrossRef ]
25. Unlu HH, Toprak B, Aslan A, Guler C. Comparison of surgical outcomes in primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002; 111: 704-9. [CrossRef ]
26. Toplu Y, Balbaba M, Kalcioglu MT, Ozcan K. Our results of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and bicanalicular silicone tube intubation surgery. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2012; 22: 136-40. [CrossRef ]
27. Metson R, Woog JJ, Puliafito CA. Endoscopic laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 1994; 104: 269-74. [CrossRef ]
28. Syed MI, Head EJ, Madurska M, Hendry J, Erikitola OC, Cain AJ. Endoscopic primary dacryocystorhinostomy: are silicone tubes needed? Our experience in sixty three patients. Clin Otolaryngol 2013; 38: 406-10. [CrossRef ]
29. Kong YT, Kim TI, Kong BW. A report of 131 cases of endoscopic laser lacrimal surgery. Ophthalmology 1994; 101: 1793-800. [CrossRef ]
30. Tas E, Dogan M, Eren Y, Vural S, Gürsel AO. Endoskopik Endonazal Dakriosistorinostomi Sonuçlarımız. KBB-Forum 2004; 3: 80-5.
31. Onerci M. Dacryocystorhinostomy. Diagnosis and treatment of nasolacrimal canal obstructions. Rhinology 2002; 40: 49-65.
32. Mannor GE, Millman AL. The prognostic value of preoperative dacryocystography in endoscopic intranasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1992; 113: 134-7. [CrossRef ]

APA	Somuk B, Alim S, sapmaz e, Deniz Demir H, TAŞKIRAN B, GÖKTAŞ G, soyalıç h (2016). Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction. , 99 - 104.
Chicago	Somuk Battal Tahsin,Alim Sait,sapmaz emrah,Deniz Demir Helin,TAŞKIRAN Burcu,GÖKTAŞ Göksel,soyalıç harun Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction. (2016): 99 - 104.
MLA	Somuk Battal Tahsin,Alim Sait,sapmaz emrah,Deniz Demir Helin,TAŞKIRAN Burcu,GÖKTAŞ Göksel,soyalıç harun Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction. , 2016, ss.99 - 104.
AMA	Somuk B,Alim S,sapmaz e,Deniz Demir H,TAŞKIRAN B,GÖKTAŞ G,soyalıç h Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction. . 2016; 99 - 104.
Vancouver	Somuk B,Alim S,sapmaz e,Deniz Demir H,TAŞKIRAN B,GÖKTAŞ G,soyalıç h Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction. . 2016; 99 - 104.
IEEE	Somuk B,Alim S,sapmaz e,Deniz Demir H,TAŞKIRAN B,GÖKTAŞ G,soyalıç h "Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction." , ss.99 - 104, 2016.
ISNAD	Somuk, Battal Tahsin vd. "Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction". (2016), 99-104.

APA	Somuk B, Alim S, sapmaz e, Deniz Demir H, TAŞKIRAN B, GÖKTAŞ G, soyalıç h (2016). Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction. Türk Otorinolarengoloji Arşivi, 54(3), 99 - 104.
Chicago	Somuk Battal Tahsin,Alim Sait,sapmaz emrah,Deniz Demir Helin,TAŞKIRAN Burcu,GÖKTAŞ Göksel,soyalıç harun Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction. Türk Otorinolarengoloji Arşivi 54, no.3 (2016): 99 - 104.
MLA	Somuk Battal Tahsin,Alim Sait,sapmaz emrah,Deniz Demir Helin,TAŞKIRAN Burcu,GÖKTAŞ Göksel,soyalıç harun Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction. Türk Otorinolarengoloji Arşivi, vol.54, no.3, 2016, ss.99 - 104.
AMA	Somuk B,Alim S,sapmaz e,Deniz Demir H,TAŞKIRAN B,GÖKTAŞ G,soyalıç h Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction. Türk Otorinolarengoloji Arşivi. 2016; 54(3): 99 - 104.
Vancouver	Somuk B,Alim S,sapmaz e,Deniz Demir H,TAŞKIRAN B,GÖKTAŞ G,soyalıç h Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction. Türk Otorinolarengoloji Arşivi. 2016; 54(3): 99 - 104.
IEEE	Somuk B,Alim S,sapmaz e,Deniz Demir H,TAŞKIRAN B,GÖKTAŞ G,soyalıç h "Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction." Türk Otorinolarengoloji Arşivi, 54, ss.99 - 104, 2016.
ISNAD	Somuk, Battal Tahsin vd. "Comparison of Endoscopic and External Dacryocystorhinostomy Results and Analysis of Patients’ Satisfaction". Türk Otorinolarengoloji Arşivi 54/3 (2016), 99-104.