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
Review
. 2018 Jun;11(2):81-88.
doi: 10.21053/ceo.2018.00031. Epub 2018 Apr 14.

A Systematic Review of Benefit of Silicone Intubation in Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy

Min Gyu Kang  1 , Woo Sub Shim  2 , Dong Keun Shin  2 , Joo Yeon Kim  3 , Ji-Eun Lee  4 , Hahn Jin Jung  2
Affiliations
Review

A Systematic Review of Benefit of Silicone Intubation in Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy

Min Gyu Kang et al. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2018 Jun.

Abstract

Objectives: Insertion of a silicone stent during endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is the most common procedure to prevent rhinostomy closure. It has been claimed that silicone intubation improves the surgical outcomes of endoscopic DCR. However, many reports have documented an equally high success rate for surgery without silicone intubation. Accordingly, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the outcomes of endoscopic DCR with and without silicone intubation and determine whether silicone intubation is actually beneficial for patients.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify relevant controlled trials evaluating endoscopic DCR with and without silicone intubation. The search was restricted to English articles published between January 2007 and December 2016. Relevant articles were reviewed to obtain information pertaining to interventions and outcomes. We also performed a meta-analysis of the relevant literature.

Results: In total, 1,216 patients included in 12 randomized controlled trials were pooled. A total of 1,239 endoscopic DCR procedures were performed, and silicone stents were used in 533 procedures. The overall success rate for endoscopic DCR was 91.9% (1,139/1,239), while the success rates with and without silicone intubation were 92.9% (495/533) and 91.2% (644/706), respectively. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity among the included studies. A meta-analysis using a fixed-effects models showed no significant difference in the success rate between endoscopic DCR with silicone intubation and that without silicone intubation (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.89 to 2.12; P=0.148; z=1.45). Furthermore, there were no significant differences with regard to surgical complications such as synechia, granulation, and postoperative bleeding.

Conclusion: The findings of our meta-analysis suggest that the success rate and postoperative complication rate for endoscopic DCR is not influenced by the use of silicone intubation during the procedure.

Keywords: Dacryocystorhinostomy; Endoscopy; Failure; Meta-Analysis; Silicones.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Study flow diagram. MMC, mitomycin C; NLDO, nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Risk of bias summary based on the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Comparison of success rate between endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Funnel plots of publication bias.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
Postoperative complication (synechia) of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.
Postoperative complication (granulation) of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.
Postoperative complication (postoperative bleeding) of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.
Sequential cumulative meta-analysis results of 12 included study. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Unlu HH, Toprak B, Aslan A, Guler C. Comparison of surgical outcomes in primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2002 Aug;111(8):704–9. - PubMed
    1. Leong SC, Macewen CJ, White PS. A systematic review of outcomes after dacryocystorhinostomy in adults. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2010 Jan-Feb;24(1):81–90. - PubMed
    1. Feng YF, Cai JQ, Zhang JY, Han XH. A meta-analysis of primary dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation. Can J Ophthalmol. 2011 Dec;46(6):521–7. - PubMed
    1. Callejas CA, Tewfik MA, Wormald PJ. Powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with selective stenting. Laryngoscope. 2010 Jul;120(7):1449–52. - PubMed
    1. Syed MI, Head EJ, Madurska M, Hendry J, Erikitola OC, Cain AJ. Endoscopic primary dacryocystorhinostomy: are silicone tubes needed? Our experience in sixty three patients. Clin Otolaryngol. 2013 Oct;38(5):406–10. - PubMed