Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Am J Otolaryngol. 2010 Jan-Feb;31(1):32-7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2008.09.012. Epub 2009 Mar 26.

A comparison of outcomes between nonlaser endoscopic endonasal and external dacryocystorhinostomy: single-center experience and a review of British trends.

Author information

1
Department of Otolaryngology, Warrington General Hospital, United Kingdom. lcheel@doctors.org.uk

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes between nonlaser endonasal endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) in a district general hospital in the United Kingdom.

STUDY DESIGN:

We conducted retrospective case notes review and postal questionnaire.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

Case notes of patients who had DCR from August 2003 to August 2007 were reviewed. All patients were sent a questionnaire that included a visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS:

Seventy patients were identified (35 external, 35 endoscopic). At discharge, 94% of external DCR patients reported being asymptomatic or improved compared with 86% for endoscopic DCR. The average VAS score for external DCR was 8.9 compared with 7.5 for endoscopic DCR (z = 2.1, P < .05). The average VAS score for external DCR was consistently higher than endoscopic DCR up to 30 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION:

External DCR offers better outcomes than endoscopic DCR. Endoscopic DCR is associated with fewer reported complications. A postal questionnaire can be a good alternative method of assessing long-term outcomes rather than relying solely on protracted clinic follow-up. There are few published endoscopic DCR results from the UK, and formalized training must be introduced.

PMID:
19944897
DOI:
10.1016/j.amjoto.2008.09.012
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center