This study aimed to evaluate the results of routine endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy combined with computed tomography guided navigation in patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

This was a retrospective study of all patients with lacrimal drainage obstruction undergoing stereotactic endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy between 1st January 2016 and 1st April 2018. Computed tomography dacryocystography was used for intra-operative navigation. Patients with a presaccal obstruction site location were excluded from the study.

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with computed tomography guided navigation was successfully performed in all 17 cases without complications. Early post-operative dislocation of the inserted bicanalicular silicone stent occurred in two patients. Two other patients developed post-operative bacterial infection within the lacrimal sac. Otherwise, the silicone tube was removed three months after surgery, and after further follow up of 8 weeks, 94 per cent of the study population reported complete remission of epiphora.

The use of computed tomography guidance in routine endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy enhanced safety for the patient and avoided unnecessary damage of bone and mucosa surrounding the lacrimal drainage system. Therefore, routine endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with additional stereotactic guidance by computed tomography navigation can contribute to high success rates with endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.

Nasolacrimal duct obstruction is common and is usually a result of benign stricture formation. Although neoplasia near or around the lacrimal system may produce epiphora, the incidence of neoplasia from within the lacrimal system as a cause of nasolacrimal duct obstruction is not well documented.

A retrospective study was performed on all patients undergoing dacryocystorhinostomy with a history of epiphora. The incidence of patients with operative findings of intra-lacrimal neoplasm was sought. Histopathologically confirmed cases were included.

The study comprised 537 patients, who underwent a total of 631 endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy procedures between January 1998 and July 2013. Non-stenotic causes of nasolacrimal duct obstruction were encountered in 3.01 per cent of dacryocystorhinostomy procedures, and included neoplastic, inflammatory and infectious pathologies. Inverted papilloma was the most common cause, encountered in 0.79 per cent of dacryocystorhinostomy operations.

These findings suggest that neoplasia is an uncommon but not a rare cause of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Surgical teams performing high numbers of dacryocystorhinostomy procedures should be aware of such pathology and patients counselled appropriately.

The authors discuss a case of conjunctival irritation and epiphora in a patient who had undergone dacryocystorhinostomy three years earlier.

Case report, and a review of the world literature concerning lacrimal canalicular air regurgitation after dacryocystorhinostomy.

A 70-year-old woman, who used continuous positive airway pressure therapy during sleep, complained of epiphora and conjunctival irritation. She had undergone dacryocystorhinostomy three years earlier. Her right eye had an augmented tear meniscus, with a predominantly medial conjunctival irritation. Conjunctival irritation from lacrimal canalicular air regurgitation was diagnosed. White petrolatum and mineral oil ophthalmic ointment was prescribed, applied topically before sleeping. After one month of treatment, complete relief of symptoms was obtained.

There is little current information on managing such patients. It is imperative to discuss this potential complication when considering nasolacrimal surgery in patients using continuous positive airway pressure therapy.

In most centres in the United Kingdom, endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy is currently undertaken as a joint operation between ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists. The addition of an extra surgeon, the use of endoscopic equipment and the relatively lower success rate of this procedure made us compare endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy with regards to costs and income for our hospital.

All 38 primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy cases performed in our centre in 2001–2003 were retrospectively compared with the 49 external dacryocystorhinostomy cases performed in 1993–2000. Cost–income calculations were made based on: rate of local anaesthesia, success rate, rate of day case admission, hospital reference cost for dacryocystorhinostomy, and the income per case extracted from national tariffs (based on the Health Resources Group). Also, the average number of cases per session was used to calculate the income gained per session for each method.

The following rates between the endoscopic and the external dacryocystorhinostomy were found: local anaesthesia, 29 vs 6 per cent, respectively; day-case operation, 95 vs 12 per cent, respectively; and success rate, 87 vs 94 per cent, respectively. The average number of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy cases conducted in a single theatre session was twice that of external dacryocystorhinostomy cases. Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy generated approximately twice the income of external dacryocystorhinostomy (£6585 vs £3292, respectively).

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy is more cost-effective than external dacryocystorhinostomy, despite having a lower success rate and greater usage of resources, as the endoscopic procedure generates more income. This is mainly due to the higher number of cases per session and the higher rates of local anaesthesia and day case operations possible.

Rhinostomy patency is a problem in all forms of dacryocystorhinostomy. Laser-assisted procedures are potentially fast and result in excellent haemostasis. However, they may induce more fibroblastic activity, resulting in excessive scarring and stenosis of the rhinostomy, compared with non-laser dissection.

The objective of this study was to compare subjective outcomes following dacryocystorhinostomy conducted with endoscopic endonasal laser and with endonasal surgical techniques.

Prospective, randomised, controlled trial comparing potassium titanyl phosphate endonasal laser dissection with endonasal surgical techniques, for dacryocystorhinostomy to treat epiphora due to primary, acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

One hundred and twenty-six adult patients with chronic epiphora due to primary, acquired nasolacrimal sac or duct obstruction.

Interventions comprised endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy, performed using potassium titanyl phosphate laser or surgical dissection, in order to open the lacrimal sac into the nasal cavity.

These were: symptom score and symptom relief of epiphora (at three and 12 months post-procedure); duration and ease of procedure; and duration of hospital stay.

Sixty patients underwent endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy and 66 underwent endonasal surgical dacryocystorhinostomy. Symptomatic success was 82 per cent at three months and 68 per cent at 12 months in the laser group, and 76 per cent at three months and 74 per cent at 12 months in the surgical group. A two-point reduction in the symptom score was associated with symptomatic success at three and 12 months. Eight patients randomised to the laser group required additional instrumentation in order to remove thick bone over the lacrimal sac.

At three months, endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy had better results than endonasal surgical dacryocystorhinostomy. However, at 12 months, the surgical procedure had better results than the laser procedure. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at three or 12 months with regard to symptomatic outcome. The ease of procedure (on a scale of zero to 10) was 4.5 for the laser procedure and 4.1 for the surgical procedure. The average times for the procedures were 25 minutes in the laser group and 20 minutes in the surgical group. No statistical difference was found when comparing: symptom score improvement for local anaesthetic vs general anaesthetic; ages over and under 70 years; laterality; or operating surgeon. Change in the symptom score was a useful indicator of symptomatic success.