Objective Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is indicated for the treatment of nasolacrimal obstruction with some authors suggesting the use of a silicone tube (stent) to maintain rhinostomy patency a long time. This study aims at comparing the results of endoscopic-DCR (En-DCR) with and without silicone stenting. Methods A randomized prospective study was conducted from January 2013 to January 2018, following patients for up to 72 months. Sixty outbound patients suffering from chronic epiphora for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction were simply randomized and assigned to En-DCR with "silicone stent tube" (SST) or "no silicone stent tube" (NSST) group. Data about the results of the two procedures were collected using Munk' and Ali' assessments. The results were statistically compared to evaluate the differences. Results 30 patients were in the SST group and 30 in NSST. In the SST group, the tube remained in place for 3-6 months (4.1 +/- 1.2 months). The follow-up period was 12-72 months (48.3 +/- 6.2 months). Success rates (Junk and Javed Ali assessments) were, respectively, 97% in SST and 90% NSST group, with no statistical difference (Student's test). On a long-term follow-up, SST patients had an increased risk of re-stenosis by 14 months. Conclusions Our results showed there were not benefit in using tube, in the opposite it increased risk of re-stenosis. Despite preliminary results, our data confirmed comparing the two methods that silicone tube should not be used.

Longitudinal randomized study to evaluate the long-term outcome of endoscopic primary dacryocystorhinostomy with or without silicone tube

Arianna Di Stadio
2021-01-01

Abstract

Objective Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is indicated for the treatment of nasolacrimal obstruction with some authors suggesting the use of a silicone tube (stent) to maintain rhinostomy patency a long time. This study aims at comparing the results of endoscopic-DCR (En-DCR) with and without silicone stenting. Methods A randomized prospective study was conducted from January 2013 to January 2018, following patients for up to 72 months. Sixty outbound patients suffering from chronic epiphora for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction were simply randomized and assigned to En-DCR with "silicone stent tube" (SST) or "no silicone stent tube" (NSST) group. Data about the results of the two procedures were collected using Munk' and Ali' assessments. The results were statistically compared to evaluate the differences. Results 30 patients were in the SST group and 30 in NSST. In the SST group, the tube remained in place for 3-6 months (4.1 +/- 1.2 months). The follow-up period was 12-72 months (48.3 +/- 6.2 months). Success rates (Junk and Javed Ali assessments) were, respectively, 97% in SST and 90% NSST group, with no statistical difference (Student's test). On a long-term follow-up, SST patients had an increased risk of re-stenosis by 14 months. Conclusions Our results showed there were not benefit in using tube, in the opposite it increased risk of re-stenosis. Despite preliminary results, our data confirmed comparing the two methods that silicone tube should not be used.
Dacryocystorhinostomy
Lacrimal duct
Endoscopic nasal surgery
Silicone tube
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/544658
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact