Endonasal carbon-dioxide laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy verses external dacryocystorhinostomy

This is a prospective, non-randomized study to evaluate and compare the results, morbidity and surgical time for endonasal carbon-dioxide laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy. 70 consecutive patients of chronic dacryocystitis with nasolacrimal duct obstruction were selected for the study. 36 patients under went endonasal CO2 laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and 34 had external dacryocystorhinostomy. Selection of the type of operation was left to the patient's choice. All the patients had preoperative counseling and both the procedures were explained in detail with their advantages and disadvantages. Patients not willing for the external incision were selected for endonasal laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and others were operated via external approach. Silicone tubes were put in all the patients for three months after surgery. The final follow up was 12 months after the removal of silicone tubes. The patency of the lacrimal passage was confirmed by irrigation, and patients were questioned about their symptoms.The success rates, 12 months after removal of silicone tubes were 100% in endonasal CO2 laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and 88.24% in external dacryocystorhinostomy. The surgical time of endonasal laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy was 38 minutes as compared to 62 in external dacryocystorhinostomy. Complication rate in both groups was almost equal.Thus, we came to the conclusion that Endonasal CO2 laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy is a better surgical option to external dacryocystorhinostomy in cases of chronic dacryocystitis with nasolacrimal duct obstruction, with shorter surgical time.