Cargando…

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without mucosal flap—is there any difference?

BACKGROUND: The nasal mucosa is sacrificed in conventional endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomies (EDCRs). Some surgeons, however, modify the technique by elevating a mucosal flap prior to creating the osteotomy with the aim of preserving the mucosa. To our knowledge, no clear-cut benefit of a mucosal f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zloto, Ofira, Koval, Tal, Yakirevich, Arkadi, Ben Simon, Guy J, Weissman, Alon, Ben Artsi, Elad, Ben Shoshan, Joseph, Priel, Ayelet
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7468247/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31767961
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-019-0716-4
_version_ 1783578178528215040
author Zloto, Ofira
Koval, Tal
Yakirevich, Arkadi
Ben Simon, Guy J
Weissman, Alon
Ben Artsi, Elad
Ben Shoshan, Joseph
Priel, Ayelet
author_facet Zloto, Ofira
Koval, Tal
Yakirevich, Arkadi
Ben Simon, Guy J
Weissman, Alon
Ben Artsi, Elad
Ben Shoshan, Joseph
Priel, Ayelet
author_sort Zloto, Ofira
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The nasal mucosa is sacrificed in conventional endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomies (EDCRs). Some surgeons, however, modify the technique by elevating a mucosal flap prior to creating the osteotomy with the aim of preserving the mucosa. To our knowledge, no clear-cut benefit of a mucosal flap has been established. The aim of this study is to examine the differences in surgical techniques and success rates of EDCRs with and without mucosal flap preservation. METHODS: We carried out a medical record review of all patients who underwent primary EDCR at the Goldschleger Eye Institute from October 2009 to October 2017. The following data were retrieved from the medical database and analyzed: patient demographics (age at diagnosis and gender), medical history, examination findings, surgical details, postoperative success, complications, and follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients who underwent 117 EDCRs participated in the study. Fifty-one patients comprised the group without a mucosal flap and 56 patients comprised the group with mucosal flap preservation. The medical history, presenting complaints, and preoperative examination findings were similar for both groups. The surgical success rate was not significantly different between the groups (82.1% without flap vs. 86.8% with flap, P = 0.478, Chi-square). CONCLUSION: The findings of this comparison of EDCRs with and without mucosal flap preservation in a large patient population revealed no differences in surgical success or complications rates between the two procedures and, therefore, no benefit for adding flap preservation to conventional EDCRs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7468247
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74682472020-09-03 Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without mucosal flap—is there any difference? Zloto, Ofira Koval, Tal Yakirevich, Arkadi Ben Simon, Guy J Weissman, Alon Ben Artsi, Elad Ben Shoshan, Joseph Priel, Ayelet Eye (Lond) Article BACKGROUND: The nasal mucosa is sacrificed in conventional endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomies (EDCRs). Some surgeons, however, modify the technique by elevating a mucosal flap prior to creating the osteotomy with the aim of preserving the mucosa. To our knowledge, no clear-cut benefit of a mucosal flap has been established. The aim of this study is to examine the differences in surgical techniques and success rates of EDCRs with and without mucosal flap preservation. METHODS: We carried out a medical record review of all patients who underwent primary EDCR at the Goldschleger Eye Institute from October 2009 to October 2017. The following data were retrieved from the medical database and analyzed: patient demographics (age at diagnosis and gender), medical history, examination findings, surgical details, postoperative success, complications, and follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients who underwent 117 EDCRs participated in the study. Fifty-one patients comprised the group without a mucosal flap and 56 patients comprised the group with mucosal flap preservation. The medical history, presenting complaints, and preoperative examination findings were similar for both groups. The surgical success rate was not significantly different between the groups (82.1% without flap vs. 86.8% with flap, P = 0.478, Chi-square). CONCLUSION: The findings of this comparison of EDCRs with and without mucosal flap preservation in a large patient population revealed no differences in surgical success or complications rates between the two procedures and, therefore, no benefit for adding flap preservation to conventional EDCRs. Nature Publishing Group UK 2019-11-25 2020-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7468247/ /pubmed/31767961 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-019-0716-4 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists 2019
spellingShingle Article
Zloto, Ofira
Koval, Tal
Yakirevich, Arkadi
Ben Simon, Guy J
Weissman, Alon
Ben Artsi, Elad
Ben Shoshan, Joseph
Priel, Ayelet
Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without mucosal flap—is there any difference?
title Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without mucosal flap—is there any difference?
title_full Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without mucosal flap—is there any difference?
title_fullStr Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without mucosal flap—is there any difference?
title_full_unstemmed Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without mucosal flap—is there any difference?
title_short Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without mucosal flap—is there any difference?
title_sort endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without mucosal flap—is there any difference?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7468247/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31767961
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-019-0716-4
work_keys_str_mv AT zlotoofira endoscopicdacryocystorhinostomywithandwithoutmucosalflapisthereanydifference
AT kovaltal endoscopicdacryocystorhinostomywithandwithoutmucosalflapisthereanydifference
AT yakirevicharkadi endoscopicdacryocystorhinostomywithandwithoutmucosalflapisthereanydifference
AT bensimonguyj endoscopicdacryocystorhinostomywithandwithoutmucosalflapisthereanydifference
AT weissmanalon endoscopicdacryocystorhinostomywithandwithoutmucosalflapisthereanydifference
AT benartsielad endoscopicdacryocystorhinostomywithandwithoutmucosalflapisthereanydifference
AT benshoshanjoseph endoscopicdacryocystorhinostomywithandwithoutmucosalflapisthereanydifference
AT prielayelet endoscopicdacryocystorhinostomywithandwithoutmucosalflapisthereanydifference