Should Silicone Lacrimal Stenting be a Better Choice for Primary Endoscopic Powered Dacryocystorhinostomy?

Objective: To compare endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (EnDCR) with and without silicone lacrimal stenting through subjective (patients’) and objective (surgeons’) outcome parameters. Methodology: Following defined selection criteria, EnDCR was performed on patients with primary chronic dacryocystitis with post-saccal stenosis. Every alternate patient had silicone lacrimal stenting (group A: no stenting; group B: with stenting); stents were removed at three months. At six months (minimum follow-up period), patients’ responses on symptom relief (through a five-point score) and naso-endoscopic evaluation (visualization of rhinostome; presence of granulations and synechiae; lacrimal drainage patency by estimating methylene blue flow pattern) were compared between the groups. Results: Each group had 20 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in group-wise follow-up periods. Five-point score at six months revealed 85% and 95% of patients in groups A and B, respectively, experienced “success”; among them, 60% and 75% were “symptom-free”. The majority (75%) in group B experienced no discomfort from stenting. Naso-endoscopy revealed 80% patients in group A and 65% in group B had well-delineated rhinostome, albeit with granulations in 25% and 50%, respectively. Spontaneous dye flow was achieved, respectively, in 75% and 90%. The difference in none of the subjective and endoscopic parameters achieved statistical significance. None had synechia; fibrosis was seen in the four patients with no dye flow even with pressure/massaging. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in EnDCR with and without silicone lacrimal stenting in the overall outcome of symptomatic improvement and endoscopic assessment of the surgical site.