Epiphora is a common ophthalmologic sign that is most commonly caused by distal acquired lacrimal obstruction. Recent data have demonstrated that external dacryocystorhinostomy (EXT-DCR) and endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (END-DCR) can be considered the treatments of choice. However, different post-surgical medical therapies are available and are currently used to improve surgical outcomes, although no direct comparison has been performed.
Objective
To analyse the influence of post-surgical medical treatments on END-DCR and EXT-DCR outcomes.
Methods
A structured search was conducted using the U.S. National Library of Medicine (PubMed), EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases with a final search performed in May 2020. The research identified papers published later than 2000 with at least 50 single clinician procedures performed in EXT-DCR and END-DCR. Articles that studied acute infections, revision cases, mixed cohort studies of acquired and congenital obstruction, and tumour were excluded. The influence of systemic antibiotic/steroids, local application of mitomycin C, nasal/ocular antibiotic, nasal/ocular steroids and nasal decongestants was analysed.
Results
In total, 11,445 papers were selected, 2,741 of which were reviewed after screening, and 18 included after full text review (0.6% of the initial articles reviewed) which involved 3,590 procedures. Considering the low number of publications on EXT-DCR, statistical analysis of post-surgical therapy was not feasible. In END-DCR, the analyses were performed only for nasal steroids (p = 0.58), oral antibiotics (p = 0.45) and nasal decongestant (p = 0.27), which demonstrated no meaningful influence. Given the variable association between adjunctive medical therapies, pharmacologic molecular heterogeneity and modality/concentration of application, these results should be considered critically. Additionally, no differences were seen for application of silicone stenting, whereas, no statistical analysis was performed for mitomycin C.
Conclusions
Given the high success rate of EXT-DCR and END-DCR and the heterogeneity of literature data, the effective influence of post-surgical medical therapy is difficult to identify. Future large prospective randomized studies could help in detecting the optimal adjunctive therapy for these surgeries.
WoogJJ.The incidence of symptomatic acquired lacrimal outflow obstruction among residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1976–2000 (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis).Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2007;
105:649–666.
2.
Al-QahtaniKHAl AsiriMTunioMA, et al.
Nasolacrimal duct obstruction following radioactive iodine 131 therapy in differentiated thyroid cancers: review of 19 cases. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;
8:2479–2484.
3.
AlexandrakisGHubbellRNAitkenPA.Nasolacrimal duct obstruction secondary to ectopic teeth.Ophthalmology. 2000;
107:189–192.
4.
AlexandrakisGTseDTRosaRHJrJohnsonTE.Nasolacrimal duct obstruction and orbital cellulitis associated with chronic intranasal cocaine abuse.Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;
117:1617–1622.
5.
AliMJ.Iodine-131 therapy and nasolacrimal duct obstructions: what we know and what we need to know.Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;
32:243–248.
6.
AliMJPaulsenF.Etiopathogenesis of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction: what we know and what we need to know.Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;35:426–433.
7.
KrishnaYCouplandSE.Lacrimal sac tumors – a review. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2017;
6:173–178.
8.
NemetAY.The etiology of epiphora: a multifactorial issue. Semin Ophthalmol. 2016;
31:275–279.
9.
ParkJHHuhJAPiaoJFLeeHBaekSH.Measuring nasolacrimal duct volume using computed tomography images in nasolacrimal duct obstruction patients in Korean. Int J Ophthalmol. 2019;
12:100–105.
10.
TanweerFMahkamovaKHarknessP.Nasolacrimal duct tumours in the era of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: literature review.J Laryngol Otol. 2013;
127:670–675.
VinciguerraANonisAGiordano RestiABussiMTrimarchiM.Best treatments available for distal acquired lacrimal obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Otolaryngol. 2020;45:545–557.
13.
SobelRKAakaluVKWladisEJBilykJRYenMTMawnLA.A comparison of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2019;126:1580–1585.
14.
MoherDShamseerLClarkeM, et al.
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.Syst Rev. 2015;
4:1.
15.
AliMJPsaltisAJMurphyJWormaldPJ.Outcomes in primary powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: comparison between experienced versus less experienced surgeons.Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2014;
28:514–516.
16.
BhatiaKSenguptaSBhadauriaM.Learning curve in external DCR – a trainee’s perspective. Nepal J Ophthalmol. 2017;
9:121–127.
17.
LeeJJLeeHMLimHBSeoSWAhnHBLeeSB.Learning curve for endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2017;
31:299–305.
18.
DekkersOMEggerMAltmanDGVandenbrouckeJP.Distinguishing case series from cohort studies.Ann Intern Med. 2012;
156:37–40.
19.
GuyattGHOxmanADVistGE, et al.
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.Br Med J. 2008;
336:924–926.
20.
Jeremy HowickICGlasziouPGreenhalghT, et al. The 2011 Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence (Introductory Document).
Oxford, England:
Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; 2011.
21.
MathesTPieperD.Clarifying the distinction between case series and cohort studies in systematic reviews of comparative studies: potential impact on body of evidence and workload.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;
17:107.
22.
HigginsJPAltmanDGGotzschePC, et al.
The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.Br Med J. 2011;
343:d5928.
23.
MunkPLLinDTMorrisDC.Epiphora: treatment by means of dacryocystoplasty with balloon dilation of the nasolacrimal drainage apparatus.Radiology. 1990;
177:687–690.
24.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
Vienna, Austria:
R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018.
25.
BalduzziSRuckerGSchwarzerG.How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial.Evid Based Ment Health. 2019;
22:153–160.
26.
AfzalMMMehmoodAMaqboolRMalikIQRehmanA.53-55 to compare the success rate of external dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicon intubation in patients of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2014;
8:53–55.
27.
Al-QahtaniAS.Primary endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with or without silicone tubing: a prospective randomized study.Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2012;
26:332–334.
28.
AriŞGunRSurmeliSAtayAEÇacaÎ.Use of adjunctive mitomycin C in external dacryocystorhinostomy surgery compared with surgery alone in patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a prospective, double-masked, randomized, controlled trial.Curr Therapeut Res Clin Exp. 2009;
70:267–273.
29.
AyoobMMahidaKQurat ulADawoodZ.Outcome and complications of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy without stenting. Pak J Med Sci. 2013;29:1236–1239.
30.
BeshayNGhabrialR.Anatomical and subjective success rates of endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy over a seven-year period.Eye (Lond). 2016;
30:1458–1461.
31.
CaglarCYenerHIGulAOzcimenM.The modified technique of external dacryocystorhinostomy in the management of complicated nasolacrimal duct obstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;
27:416–419.
32.
CiğerEBalciMKArslanoğluSErenE.Endoscopic-powered dacryocystorhinostomy without stenting: long-term outcomes of 120 procedures.Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2018;
32:303–309.
33.
DoJRLeeHBaekSLeeTSChangM.Efficacy of postoperative mitomycin-C eye drops on the clinical outcome in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;
254:785–790.
34.
Erfanian SalimRMohammadiS.Results of Endoscopic Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy; Necessity of Teamwork and Patient Selection. 2015;4:114–119.
35.
KarimRGhabrialRLynchTTangB.A comparison of external and endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;
5:979–989.
36.
LeeJLeeHLeeHKChangMParkMBaekS.Effectiveness of synthetic polyurethane foam as a nasal packing material in endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;
26:2207–2211.
37.
MakSTIoIYWongAC.Prognostic factors for outcome of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy in patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;
251:1361–1367.
38.
ShinHYPaikJSYangSW.Clinical results of anti-adhesion adjuvants after endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy.Korean J Ophthalmol. 2018;
32:433–437.
39.
SuPY.Comparison of endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy for treatment of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Taiwan J Ophthalmol. 2018;
8:19–23.
40.
TrimarchiMGiordano RestiABelliniCFortiMBussiM.Anastomosis of nasal mucosal and lacrimal sac flaps in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;
266:1747–1752.
41.
TrimarchiMGiordano RestiAVinciguerraADaneGBussiM.Dacryocystorhinostomy: evolution of endoscopic techniques after 498 cases.Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019. doi: 10.1177/1120672119854582.
42.
WuWCannonPSYanWTuYSelvaDQuJ.Effects of Merogel coverage on wound healing and ostial patency in endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy for primary chronic dacryocystitis.Eye (Lond). 2011;
25:746–753.
43.
ParkJLeeJJangS, et al.
Effectiveness of sodium hyaluronate (Protad) application in endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Can J Ophthalmol. 2017;
52: 192–197.
44.
GrzybowskiABronaPKimSJ.Microbial flora and resistance in ophthalmology: a review.Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;
255:851–862.
45.
EshraghiBAlemzadehSAAbedinifarZ.Conjunctival bacterial flora in fellow eyes of patients with unilateral nasolacrimal duct obstruction and its changes after successful dacryocystorhinostomy surgery. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2017;
29:59–62.
46.
FahmyJAMollerSBentzonMW.Bacterial flora in relation to cataract extraction. II. Peroperative flora.Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1975;
53:476–494.
47.
GrahamJEMooreJEJiruX, et al.
Ocular pathogen or commensal: a PCR-based study of surface bacterial flora in normal and dry eyes.Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;
48:5616–5623.
48.
SutoCMorinagaMYagiTTsujiCToshidaH.Conjunctival sac bacterial flora isolated prior to cataract surgery. Infect Drug Resist. 2012;
5:37–41.
49.
TaCNChangRTSinghK, et al.
Antibiotic resistance patterns of ocular bacterial flora: a prospective study of patients undergoing anterior segment surgery.Ophthalmology. 2003;
110:1946–1951.
50.
CurraghDSBassiouniAMacias-ValleL, et al.
The microbiome of the nasolacrimal system and its role in nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;
36:80–85.
51.
AliMJMotukupallySRJoshiSDNaikMN.The microbiological profile of lacrimal abscess: two decades of experience from a tertiary eye care center.J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect. 2013;
3:57.
52.
BlickerJABuffamFV.Lacrimal sac, conjunctival, and nasal culture results in dacryocystorhinostomy patients. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;
9:43–46.
53.
CodenDJHornblassAHaasBD.Clinical bacteriology of dacryocystitis in adults. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;
9:125–131.
54.
DeAngelisDHurwitzJMazzulliT.The role of bacteriologic infection in the etiology of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Can J Ophthalmol. 2001;
36:134–139.
55.
HartikainenJLehtonenOPSaariKM.Bacteriology of lacrimal duct obstruction in adults.Br J Ophthalmol. 1997;
81:37–40.
56.
Huber-SpitzyVSteinkoglerFJHuberEArocker-MettingerESchiffbankerM.Acquired dacryocystitis: microbiology and conservative therapy.Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1992;
70:745–749.
57.
ShethJRathSTripathyD.Oral versus single intravenous bolus dose antibiotic prophylaxis against postoperative surgical site infection in external dacryocystorhinostomy for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction – a randomized study.Indian J Ophthalmol. 2019;
67:382–385.
58.
HopkinsCC.Antibiotic prophylaxis in clean surgery: peripheral vascular surgery, noncardiovascular thoracic surgery, herniorrhaphy, and mastectomy.Rev Infect Dis. 1991;
13(Suppl 10):S869–S873.
59.
HurleyLDWestfallCTShoreJW.Prophylactic use of antibiotics in oculoplastic surgery. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1992;
32:165–178.
60.
WallandMJRoseGE.Soft tissue infections after open lacrimal surgery. Ophthalmology. 1994;
101:608–611.
61.
YaziciBMeyerDR.Selective antibiotic use to prevent postoperative wound infection after external dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;
18:331–335.
62.
Balikoglu-YilmazMEsenABYilmazT, et al.
Bacteriological profile in conjunctival, lacrimal sac, and nasal specimens and conjunctival normalization time following external, endoscopic, and transcanalicular multidiode laser dacryocystorhinostomy.Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2016;
79:163–170.
63.
KangMGShimWSShinDKKimJYLeeJEJungHJ.A systematic review of benefit of silicone intubation in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;
11:81–88.
BeckerBB.Cultures of proximal and distal segments of silicone tubes after dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;
35:42–44.
66.
KimSELeeSJLeeSYYoonJS.Clinical significance of microbial growth on the surfaces of silicone tubes removed from dacryocystorhinostomy patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012;
153:253–257.
67.
IngEBBediHHussainA, et al.
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation.Can J Ophthalmol. 2018;
53:466–470.
68.
KimDHKimSIJinHJKimSHwangSH.The clinical efficacy of silicone stents for endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: a meta-analysis.Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;
11:151–157.
69.
SarodeDBariDACainACSyedMIWilliamsAT.The benefit of silicone stents in primary endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clin Otolaryngol. 2017;
42:307–314.
70.
XieCZhangLLiuYMaHLiS.Comparing the success rate of dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation: a trial sequential analysis of randomized control trials.Sci Rep. 2017;
7:1936.
71.
MurphyJAliMJPsaltisAJ.Biofilm quantification on nasolacrimal silastic stents after dacryocystorhinostomy.Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;
31:396–400.
72.
ChengSMFengYFXuLLiYHuangJH.Efficacy of mitomycin C in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS One. 2013;
8:e62737.
73.
FengYFYuJGShiJLHuangJHSunYLZhaoYE.A meta-analysis of primary external dacryocystorhinostomy with and without mitomycin C. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2012;
19:364–370.
74.
NairAGAliMJ.Mitomycin-C in dacryocystorhinostomy: from experimentation to implementation and the road ahead: a review.Indian J Ophthalmol. 2015;
63:335–339.
75.
QianZZhangYFanX.Clinical outcomes of dacryocystorhinostomy with or without intraoperative use of mitomycin C: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2014;
30:615–624.
76.
PhelpsPOAbarigaSACowlingBJSelvaDMarcetMM.Antimetabolites as an adjunct to dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;
4:CD012309.
77.
SosuanGMNRancheFKTLagunzadJKD.A randomized controlled trial on the effects of oxymetazoline nasal spray after dacryocystorhinostomy among adult patients.BMC Res Notes. 2020;
13:236.
78.
HosalBMHosalSAHurwitzJJFreemanJL.A rationale for the selection of nasal decongestants in lacrimal drainage surgery. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;
11:215–220.
79.
KorkmazHYaoWCKorkmazMBleierBS.Safety and efficacy of concentrated topical epinephrine use in endoscopic endonasal surgery.Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2015;
5:1118–1123.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
