Revision Dacryocystorhinostomy

 

Previous external DCR (%)

Previous endoscopic DCR (%)

P-value

Preoperative nasal findings

Nasal mucosal fibrosis

8 (32)

15 (26.3)

0.598

Synechiae between middle turbinate and anastomosis site

5 (25)

20 (35.1)

0.172

Transnasal synechiae

5 (25)

10 (17.5)

0.791

Hypertrophic middle turbinate

6 (26)

4 (7.0)

0.031*

Granuloma

7 (28)

10 (17.5)

0.819

Severe septal deviation

2 (8)

2 (3.5)

0.001*

Nasal polyp

8 (32)

1 (1.8)

0.166

Perioperative findings

Inappropriately sized and/or localized ostium

2 (8)

17 (29.8)

0.031*

Fibrosis at the anastomosis site

15 (60)

25 (43.9)

0.178

Common canalicular obstruction

5 (25)

7 (12.3)

0.153

Membranous obstruction

5 (25)

23 (40.4)

0.199


Source: Clin Experiment Ophthalmal. 2013 Mar; 41(2):116–21 * Chi-square test: p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant



The endoscopic access for DCR is extremely precise in revision surgery, which permits the correction of associated nasal factors that may have been involved in the failure of previous surgery [3, 4, 8]. Common causes of failure in lacrimal drainage surgery are septal deviations, incomplete removal of the lacrimal bone, synechiae, and granulation tissues, which apply to both the external and endonasal approaches. These factors were easier to identify at the time of revision surgery and more accurately treated because of direct endoscopic visualization (Fig. 18.1).

A81478_2_En_18_Fig1_HTML.jpg


Fig. 18.1
The endoscopic photograph of obstructive rhinostomy of failed primary dacryocystorhinstomy: thick fibrotic mucosal membrane obscures bony rhinostomy

El Guindy et al. performed endoscopic revision DCR on 18 patients with recurrent epiphora after external DCR, with an 83.3 % success rate [8]. Tsirbas et al. compared endoscopic and external approach methods in 17 and 13 revision cases, respectively, and reported success rates of 76.5 % and 84.6 %, respectively [9]. They concluded that the endoscopic method has a comparable success rate to the external method in revision cases. The reported success rate of revision endoscopic DCR in the literature ranges from 75 to 90.9 % [810].

Endonasal DCR has several advantages for revision cases: (a) absence of additional scarring; (b) maintenance of the mechanism of lacrimal pumping by the orbicular muscle; (c) reduction in injury to structures of the medial canthus; (d) less bleeding; (e) shorter hospitalization; (f) technical facility because of anterior removal of the lacrimal bone; (g) the possibility to correct other conditions during the same surgical procedure, including septal deviations, synechiae, granulation tissue, rhinosinusitis, nasal polyposis, and incomplete bone removal; and (h) direct visualization of the site and amplitude of the nasolacrimal fistula. The endoscope provides excellent intranasal visualization and enables the surgeon to open the lacrimal sac with relative ease from within the nasal cavity [3, 10].

Two different standard DCR surgical techniques are used in surgical revision cases, as described below. Both methods can be conducted under local or general anesthesia, depending on physician preference [9, 1113].


External DCR Surgical Revision Technique


A standard skin incision and soft tissue dissection are performed to expose the lacrimal sac. A Bowman’s lacrimal probe is placed into both the inferior and superior canaliculi, and an incision is made through existing scar and mucosa of the rhinostomy, creating a large anterior nasal flap. In most cases, the bony rhinostomy, sac, and/or duct are found to have been insufficiently opened to allow for an adequate rhinostomy. After the creation of an adequate bony osteum of at least 10–20 mm, the lacrimal and mucosal flaps are sutured. Silicone tubes are inserted if there is any canalicular pathology or if the sac is small, scarred, or inflamed. The tubes are removed 3–6 months postoperatively.


Endoscopic DCR Surgical Revision Technique


Mucoperiosteal flap surgery is performed under endoscopic visualization, in the projection of the lacrimal fossa to obtain a flap incision that is slightly more anterior over the frontal process of the maxilla. This mucosal incision allows the correct surgical plane to be established for the dissection of the mucosal flap. The flap is undermined and resected, and the medial bone wall of the lacrimal sac or its remnant is removed by drilling or using a Kerrison rongeur until complete sac exposure is obtained. The lacrimal sac is located by inserting a stent into the lacrimal canaliculi and is opened along its full vertical length using a sickle knife. Silicone tubes are inserted into the nasal cavity via the superior and inferior puncta, and are removed 3–6 months postoperatively (Fig. 18.2).

A81478_2_En_18_Fig2_HTML.jpg


Fig. 18.2
The endoscopic photograph during endoscopic revision surgery case: thick mucosal membrane is reopened with a sickle-shaped or a number 12 blade knife and number 1 Bowman probe is placed through upper canaliculus to a newly formed rhinostomy site


Important Points in Revision Cases


The reason for the failure of previous surgery may be attributable to an inadequately opened bone window [6, 7, 14]. In the case of bone formation, a suitable method for the endoscopic localization of the sac is important to avoid the recurrence of epiphora. The sac is localized on the anterior–superior region of the connection point of the middle concha, and variations are rarely encountered. An osteotomy should be performed exactly over the sac and the sac should be opened from the middle aspect, and not from the upper or lower aspects. The development of postoperative adhesions is a further reason for failure. Nasal pathologies, including septal deviations, concha bollosa, or concha hypertrophy, and hyperpneumatized ethmoid cells are factors that enhance adhesions. When these intranasal pathologies result in the failure of the previous operation, the subsequent adhesions can be readily determined during endoscopic revision surgery and be repaired during the same operation session. Another important point in revision cases is the usage of stents, which is relatively controversial. Although it has been reported in some studies that leaving the stents for an extended period may induce granulation formation, some authors still propose long-term use, particularly in revision case. In a literature review of revision cases, especially endoscopic revision, most authors used silicone stents for 3–6 months postoperatively.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Jun 8, 2017 | Posted by in OPHTHALMOLOGY | Comments Off on Revision Dacryocystorhinostomy

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access