One-week intubation in external dacryocystorhinostomy– a report on long-term outcome

4Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: The role of silicone stent intubation in dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is not clear, and conclusions presented in the literature are contradictory both regarding if intubation should be recommended and if so, the appropriate duration of intubation. This paper reports on the long-term outcome of a comparatively short duration of silicone stent intubation, one week, and discusses the possibility of an optimal duration of intubation where the benefit of the silicone stent is utilized but with minimal risk of complications. Methods: A total of 70 cases of DCR were followed in 67 patients for four years in a descriptive case series of uncomplicated external DCR with one-week silicone stent intubation. Pre- and perioperative findings, complications, and the need for additional surgery were recorded. At end of follow-up, a questionnaire was sent to the patients asking them to grade the frequency of epiphoric problems. If graded often/constant, a follow-up visit was offered. Results: One patient received additional surgery during follow-up due to persistent epiphora caused by synechiae between the middle turbinate and lateral nasal wall. The response rate to the questionnaire was 88%, with 93% of the respondents reporting epiphora never/seldom. Four patients reported persistent problems: one declined further examination, the tear duct was anatomically patent in two, and one was referred to the ENT department due to inflamed nasal mucosa and extensive adhesions. The long-term functional or anatomical success rate was 97%. Conclusions: This study shows that a high long-term success rate for uncomplicated DCR is possible with only one-week silicone stent intubation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bohman, E., & Dafgård Kopp, E. (2021). One-week intubation in external dacryocystorhinostomy– a report on long-term outcome. Orbit (London), 40(4), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/01676830.2020.1778737

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free