Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 31, 2026
Transcanalicular Diode Laser-assisted Dacryocystorhinostomy for the Treatment of Primary Acquired Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction
Published on: October 13, 2017
Comparison of nonlaser nonendoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with external dacryocystorhinostomy
Randy A Walker1, Ahmed Al-Ghoul, M Ronan Conlon
1Department of Ophthalmology, Saskatoon City Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Sask., Canada. ra.walker@shaw.ca
Objective:
To compare the success rate of nonlaser nonendoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (EN-DCR) with that of externalDCR(EX-DCR).
Design:
Retrospective chart review.
Participants:
Eighty-eight patients that underwent 102 consecutive EN-DCR or EX-DCR between November 1, 1995, and September 1, 2003.
Methods:
All DCRswere performed by a single ophthalmologist. The surgical protocol remained constant, and surgical success was defined as a lack of symptoms that indicated DCR or normal canalicular irrigation.
Results:
Eighty-eight patients were reviewed, equating to 102 cases ofDCR (56 EX-DCRand 46 EN-DCR). The average age of patients was 63.2±18.2 years old (range, 19-93 years), and the average duration of surgery was 32.1 minutes for EX-DCR and 23.3 minutes for ENDCR (p < 0.0001). Three cases of intraoperative bleed requiring nasal packing were documented in EX-DCR and 2 cases in EN-DCR. The success rates were 89.8% and 90.2% for EX-DCR and EN-DCR, respectively. There was no statistical difference between these 2 numbers. The average follow-up time was 12.8 months (median, 5 months; range, 2-97 months).
Conclusions:
We found that the endonasal approach to DCRs was quicker than the external approach and the success and complication rates of both methods were comparable.
