Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2026
Transcanalicular Diode Laser-assisted Dacryocystorhinostomy for the Treatment of Primary Acquired Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction
Published on: October 13, 2017
[First line endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy Technique and results. Comparison between diode laser and electrocautery
J M Piaton1, P Keller, S Limon
1Centre National d'Ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts, Service du professeur S. Limon, 28 rue de Charenton, 75012 Paris, France.
Purpose Of The Study:
To assess the results of the first procedures of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (ENL DCR). To study the efficiency of diode laser in this operation versus electrocautery instruments (ECI).
Design:
Prospective study; comparative study.
Methods:
Intraoperative comparison between ECI and diode laser is based on 422 ENL DCR achieved between June 1997 until June 2000. Three hundreds and sixty three procedures were diode laser assisted and 59 procedures were done with the use of an ECI. The diode laser was only used to vaporize nasal mucosa laying on the osteotomy site, to realize partial turbinectomy and to vaporize polyps and synechiae. Intraoperative comparison was based on the followings: frequency and extent of bleeding, quality of visibility, perception of pain during the use of the instrument and duration of the operation. Postoperative comparison is based on 318 procedures. Comparison was based on: frequency of granuloma formation in the nasal mucosa at the site of the osteotomy, frequency of acquired nasal synechiae, frequency of important crusting reaction of the nasal mucosa; success rates after a minimum follow up of 6 months.
Results:
Intraoperative haemorrhages were fewer and smaller in the diode laser assisted procedures than in ECI assisted procedures; visibility was better with the diode laser; the use of the diode laser was painless versus 24% of patients complaining of pain during the use of electro-cautery. The duration of the procedure was shorter with the diode laser (29'30 vs 37'). In the postoperative follow-up frequency of granuloma formation was equal with the two instruments, synechiae were fewer with the diode laser (11% vs 22%) just like crusting reaction of the nasal mucosa (7% vs 36%). Success rates were similar (diode laser: 91.94% vs EC: 86.66%).
Conclusion:
Because of the effeciency of the vaporization and coagulation, the diode laser, in comparison with the ECI, allows to shorten mean operative time, to improve the visibility and to decrase bleeding. Contrary to EC it's use is painless. Fewer important crusting reactions and fewer synechiae after diode laser assisted procedures tend to prove than postoperative inflammation and surgical trauma are smaller than with ECI. There is no statiscally signifant difference between the success rates of ENL laser diode assisted procedures and ENL ECI assisted procedures.
