Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Feb 24;2(2):CD007097.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007097.pub3.

Endonasal versus external dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Lona Jawaheer  1 , Caroline J MacEwen  2 , Deepa Anijeet  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Endonasal versus external dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal duct obstruction

Lona Jawaheer et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: A dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) procedure aims to restore drainage of tears by bypassing a blockage in the nasolacrimal duct, through the creation of a bony ostium that allows communication between the lacrimal sac and the nasal cavity. It can be performed using endonasal or external approaches. The comparative success rates of these two approaches have not yet been established and this review aims to evaluate the relevant up-to-date research.

Objectives: The primary aim of this review is to compare the success rates of endonasal DCR with that of external DCR. The secondary aim is to compare the complication rates between the two procedures.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2016, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to 22 August 2016), Embase (January 1980 to 22 August 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to 22 August 2016), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S) (January 1990 to 22 August 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 August 2016. We requested or examined relevant conference proceedings for appropriate trials.

Selection criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing endonasal and external DCRs.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and extracted data on reported outcomes. We attempted to contact investigators to clarify the methodological quality of the studies. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

Main results: We included two trials in this review. One trial from Finland compared laser-assisted endonasal DCR with external DCR, and one trial from India compared mechanical endonasal DCR (using punch forceps) with external DCR. The trials were poorly reported and it was difficult to judge the extent to which bias had been avoided.Anatomic success was defined as the demonstration of a patent lacrimal passage on syringing, or endoscopic visualisation of fluorescein dye at the nasal opening of the anastomoses after a period of at least six months following surgery. Subjective success was defined as the resolution of symptoms of watering following surgery after a period of at least six months. Both included trials used anatomic patency demonstrated by irrigation as a measure of anatomic success. Different effects were seen in these two trials (I2 = 76%). People receiving laser-assisted endonasal DCR were less likely to have a successful operation compared with external DCR (63% versus 91%; risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.52 to 0.92; 64 participants). There was little or no difference in success comparing mechanical endonasal DCR and external DCR (90% in both groups; RR 1.00, CI 0.81 to 1.23; 40 participants). We judged this evidence on success to be very low-certainty, downgrading for risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. The trial from Finland also assessed subjective improvement in symptoms following surgery. Resolution of symptoms of watering in outdoor conditions was reported by 84% of the participants in the external DCR group and 59% of those in the laser-assisted endonasal DCR group (RR 0.70, CI 0.51 to 0.97; 64 participants, low-certainty evidence).There were no cases of intraoperative bleeding in any participant in the trial that compared laser-assisted endonasal DCR to external DCR. This was in contrast to the trial comparing mechanical endonasal DCR to external DCR in which 45% of participants in both groups experienced intraoperative bleeding (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.98; 40 participants). We judged this evidence on intraoperative bleeding to be very low-certainty, downgrading for risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency.There were only two cases of postoperative bleeding, both in the external DCR group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.10; participants = 104; studies = 2). There were only two cases of wound infection/gaping, again both in the external DCR group (RR 0.20, CI 0.01 to 3.92; participants = 40; studies = 1). We judged this evidence on complications to be very low-certainty, downgrading one level for risk of bias and two levels for imprecision due to the very low number of cases.

Authors' conclusions: There is uncertainty as to the relative effects of endonasal and external DCR. Differences in effect seen in the two trials included in this review may be due to variations in the endonasal technique, but may also be due to other differences between the trials. Future larger RCTs are required to further assess the success and complication rates of endonasal and external DCR. Different techniques of endonasal DCR should also be assessed, as the choice of endonasal technique can influence the outcome. Strict outcome criteria should be adopted to assess functional and anatomical outcomes with a minimal follow-up of six months.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Lona Jawaheer: none known Caroline MacEwen: none known Deepa Anijeet: none known

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Endonasal versus external DCR, Outcome 1 Anatomic success.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Endonasal versus external DCR, Outcome 2 Subjective success.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Endonasal versus external DCR, Outcome 3 Intraoperative bleeding.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Endonasal versus external DCR, Outcome 4 Postoperative bleeding.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Endonasal versus external DCR, Outcome 5 Wound infection/gaping.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Hartikainen 1998 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Hartikainen J, Grenman R, Puukka P, Seppä H. Prospective randomized comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy and endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology 1998;105(6):1106‐13. - PubMed
Moras 2011 {published data only}
    1. Moras K, Bhat M, Shreyas CS, Mendonca N, Pinto G. External dacryocystorhinostomy versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: A comparison. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2011;5(2):182‐6.

References to studies excluded from this review

Ajalloueyan 2007 {published data only}
    1. Ajalloueyan M, Fartookzadeh M, Parhizgar H. Use of laser for dacrocystorhinostomy. Archives of Otolaryngology ‐ Head & Neck Surgery 2007;133(4):340‐3. - PubMed
Balikoglu‐Yilmaz 2015 {published data only}
    1. Balikoglu‐Yilmaz M, Yilmaz T, Taskin U, Taskapili M, Akcay M, Oktay MF, et al. Prospective comparison of 3 dacryocystorhinostomy surgeries: external versus endoscopic versus transcanalicular multidiode laser. Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2015;31(1):13‐8. - PubMed
Derya 2013 {published data only}
    1. Derya K, Demirel S, Orman G, Cumurcu T, Gunduz A. Endoscopic transcanalicular diode laser dacryocystorhinostomy: is it an alternative method to conventional external dacryocystorhinostomy?. Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2013;29(1):15‐7. - PubMed
Hartikainen 1998b {published data only}
    1. Hartikainen J, Antila J, Varpula M, Puukka P, Seppä H, Grénman R. Prospective randomized comparison of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 1998;108(12):1861‐6. - PubMed
Javate 2010 {published data only}
    1. Javate RM, Pamintuan FG, Cruz RT. Efficacy of endoscopic lacrimal duct recanalization using microendoscope. Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2010;26(5):330‐3. - PubMed
Tang 2015 {published data only}
    1. Tang YZ, Lu HL, Yan SG, Kong XB, Liu XY, Liang KF, et al. Clinical research of the micro‐invasive treatments for chronic dacryocystitis with the fifth generation lacrimal endoscope. International Eye Science 2015;15(6):1046‐9.
Taskin 2011 {published data only}
    1. Taskin U, Yigit O, Sisman A, Eltutar K, Eryigit T. Comparison of outcomes between endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy with a Griffiths nasal catheter. Journal of Otolaryngology ‐ Head & Neck Surgery 2011;40(3):216‐20. - PubMed
Yigit 2007 {published data only}
    1. Yigit O, Samancioglu M, Taskin U, Ceylan S, Eltutar K, Yener M. External and endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy in chronic dacryocystitis: Comparison of results. European Archives of Oto‐Rhino‐Laryngology 2007;264(8):879‐85. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Cui 2013 {published data only}
    1. Cui W, Jiang L, Jiang YH, Xi J. Effects analysis of three kinds of operation methods in treatment of dacryocystitis. International Eye Science 2013;13(7):1510‐1.
Zhou 2015 {published data only}
    1. Zhou J, Kong QJ, Li B. Effects comparison of two operation methods in treatment of dacryocystitis. International Eye Science 2015;15(3):565‐66.

Additional references

Atkins 2004
    1. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck‐Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004;328(7454):1490. - PMC - PubMed
Bakri 1999
    1. Bakri SJ, Carney AS, Robinson K, Jones NS, Downes RN. Quality of life outcomes following dacryocystorhinostomy: External and endonasal laser techniques compared. Orbit 1999;18(2):83‐8. - PubMed
Ben Simon 2005
    1. Ben Simon GJ, Joseph J, Lee S, Schwarcz RM, McCann JD, Goldberg RA. External versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction in a tertiary referral centre. Ophthalmology 2005;112(8):1464‐8. - PubMed
Boush 1994
    1. Boush GA, Lemke BN, Dortzbach RK. Results of endonasal laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology 1994;101(5):955‐9. - PubMed
Caldwell 1893
    1. Caldwell GW. Two new operations for obstruction of the nasal duct. New York Medical Journal 1893;57:581‐2.
Chen 2009
    1. Chen D, Ge J, Wang L, Gao Q, Ma P, Li N, et al. A simple and evolutional approach proven to recanalise the nasolacrimal duct obstruction. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2009;93(11):1438‐43. - PMC - PubMed
Cokkeser 2000
    1. Cokkeser Y, Evereklioglu C, Er H. Comparative external versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: Results in 115 patients (130 eyes). Otolaryngology ‐ Head & Neck Surgery 2000;123(4):488‐91. - PubMed
Dolman 2003
    1. Dolman PJ. Comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy with nonlaser endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology 2003;110(1):78‐84. - PubMed
Dupuy‐Dutemps 1921
    1. Dupuy‐Dutemps B. Procede plastique de dacryocystorhinostomie et ses resultants. Annales d'Ocullstique 1921;158:241‐61.
Fayers 2009
    1. Fayers T, Laverde T, Tay E, Olver JM. Lacrimal surgery success after external dacryocystorhinostomy: functional and anatomical results using strict outcome criteria. Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2009;25(6):472‐5. - PubMed
Glanville 2006
    1. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso‐Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(2):130‐6. - PMC - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT 2014 [Computer program]
    1. GRADE Working Group, McMaster University. GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 14 September 2016. Hamilton (ON): GRADE Working Group, McMaster University, 2014.
Halle 1914
    1. Halle M. [Zur intranasalen operation am tranensack]. Archives of Oto‐Rhino‐Laryngology 1914;28:256‐66.
Henson 2007
    1. Henson RD, Henson RG Jr, Cruz HL Jr, Camara JG. Use of the diode laser with intraoperative mitomycin C in endocanalicular laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2007;23(2):134‐7. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JAC editor(s). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Hii 2012
    1. Hii BW, McNab AA, Friebel JD. A Comparison of External and Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy in Regard to Patient Satisfaction and Cost. Orbit 2012;31(2):67‐76. - PubMed
Huang 2014
    1. Huang J, Malek J, Chin D, Snidvongs K, Wilcsek G, Tumuluri K, et al. Systematic review and meta‐analysis on outcomes for endoscopic versus external dacryocystorhinostomy. Orbit 2014;33(2):81‐90. - PubMed
Ibrahim 2001
    1. Ibrahim HA, Batterbury M, Banhegyi G, McGalliard J. Endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy outcome profile in a general ophthalmic service unit: a comparative retrospective study. Ophthalmic Surgery and Lasers 2001;32(3):220‐7. - PubMed
Kennedy 1985
    1. Kennedy DW. Functional endoscopic sinus surgery technique. Archives of Otolaryngology ‐ Head & Neck Surgery 1985;111(10):643‐9. - PubMed
Kong 1994
    1. Kong YT, Kim TI, Kong BW. A report of 131 cases of endoscopic laser lacrimal surgery. Ophthalmology 1994;101(11):1793‐800. - PubMed
Maini 2007
    1. Maini S, Raghava N, Youngs R, Evans K, Trivedi S, Foy C, et al. Endoscopic endonasal laser versus endonasal surgical dacryocystorhinostomy for epiphora due to nasolacrimal duct obstruction: prospective, randomised, controlled trial. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 2007;121(2):1170‐6. - PubMed
Mathew 2004
    1. Mathew MR, McGuiness R, Webb LA, Murray SB, Esakowitz L. Patient satisfaction in our initial experience with endonasal endoscopic non‐laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Orbit 2004;23(2):77‐85. - PubMed
McDonogh 1989
    1. McDonogh M, Meiring JH. Endoscopic transnasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 1989;103(6):585‐7. - PubMed
Metson 1994
    1. Metson R, Woog JJ, Puliafito CA. Endoscopic laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 1994;104(3 Pt 1):269‐74. - PubMed
Moore 2002
    1. Moore WM, Bentley CR, Olver JM. Functional and anatomic results after two types of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: surgical and holmium laser. Ophthalmology 2002;109(8):1575‐82. - PubMed
Muellner 2000
    1. Muellner K, Bodner E, Mannor GE, Wolf G, Hofmann T, Luxenberger W. Endolacrimal laser assisted lacrimal surgery. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2000;84(1):16‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Ng 2015
    1. Ng DS, Chan E, Yu DK, Ko ST. Aesthetic assessment in periciliary "v‐incision" versus conventional external dacryocystorhinostomy in Asians. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2015;253(10):1783‐90. - PubMed
Pearlman 1997
    1. Pearlman SJ, Michalos P, Leib ML, Moazed KT. Translacrimal transnasal laser‐assisted dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 1997;107(10):1362‐5. - PubMed
Qin 2010
    1. Qin ZY, Lu ZM, Liang ZJ. Application of mitomycin C in nasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. International Journal of Ophthalmology 2010;10(8):1569‐71.
Reifler 1993
    1. Reifler DM. Results of endoscopic KTP laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 1993;9(4):231‐6. - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Roozitalab 2004
    1. Roozitalab MH, Amirahmadi M, Namazi MR. Results of the application of intraoperative mitomycin C in dacryocystorhinostomy. European Journal of Ophthalmology 2004;14(6):461‐3. - PubMed
Saiju 2009
    1. Saiju R, Morse LJ, Weinberg D, Shrestha MK, Ruit S. Prospective randomized comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2009;93(9):1220‐2. - PubMed
Seppa 1994
    1. Seppa H, Grenman R, Hartikainen J. Endonasal CO2‐Nd: YAG laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Acta Ophthalmologica 1994;72(6):703‐6. - PubMed
Sham 2000
    1. Sham CL, Hasselt CA. Endoscopic terminal dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 2000;110(6):1045‐9. - PubMed
Smirnov 2006
    1. Smirnov G, Tuomilehto H, Terasvirta M, Nuutinen J, Seppa J. Silicone tubing after endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: is it necessary?. American Journal of Rhinology 2006;20(6):600‐2. - PubMed
Stammberger 1986
    1. Stammberger H. Endoscopic endonasal surgery: concepts in treatment of recurring rhinosinusitis. Part II. Surgical technique. Otolaryngology ‐ Head and Neck Surgery 1986;94(2):147‐56. - PubMed
Tarbet 1995
    1. Tarbet KJ, Custer PL. External dacryocystorhinostomy: surgical success, patient satisfaction and economic cost. Ophthalmology 1995;102(7):1065‐70. - PubMed
Toti 1904
    1. Toti A. [Nuovo metodo conservatore di cura radicle delle suppurazoni croniche del sacco lacrimale (Dacriocistorinostomia)]. Clinica Moderna Firenze 1904;10:385‐7.
Tsirbas 2004
    1. Tsirbas A, Davis G, Wormald PJ. Mechanical endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy versus external dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2004;20(1):50‐6. - PubMed
Unlu 2009
    1. Unlu HH, Gunhan K, Baser EF, Songu M. Long term results in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: is intubation really required?. Otolaryngology ‐ Head and Neck Surgery 2009;140(7):589‐95. - PubMed
Verma 2006
    1. Verma A, Khabori M, Zutshi R. Endonasal carbon‐dioxide laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy verses external dacryocystorhinostomy. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery 2006;58(1):9‐14. - PMC - PubMed
Watts 2001
    1. Watts P, Ram AR, Nair R, Williams H. Comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy and 5‐fluorouracil augmented endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. A retrospective review. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 2001;49(3):169‐72. - PubMed
West 1910
    1. West JM. A window resection of the nasal duct in cases of stenosis. Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 1910;12(Pt 2):654‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Woog 1993
    1. Woog JJ, Metson R, Puliafito CA. Holmium: YAG endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1993;116(1):1‐10. - PubMed
Yuce 2013
    1. Yuce S, Ali A, Dogan M, Uysal IO, Muderris S. Results of Endoscopic Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 2013;24(1):e11‐12. - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Anijeet 2011
    1. Anijeet D, Dolan L, MacEwen CJ. Endonasal versus external dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007097.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Anijeet 2008
    1. Anijeet D, Dolan L, MacEwen CJ. Endonasal versus external dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007097] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources