Bicanalicular silicone tubes versus otologic T-tubes in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy

We compared the efficacy of T-tubes and bicanalicular silicone tubes in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). We retrospectively reviewed 54 eyes of 49 patients who had experienced nasolacrimal duct obstruction and undergone endoscopic DCR. Group one had bicanalicular silicone tube stents implanted...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:	B-ENT (Leuven) 2008-01, Vol.4 (3), p.135-139
Hauptverfasser:	Erkan, A N, Yilmazer, C, Altan-Yaycioglu, R, Akkuzu, B, Aktaş, L
Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	eng
Schlagworte:	Adult Cohort Studies Dacryocystorhinostomy - instrumentation Endoscopy Equipment Design Female Humans Intubation - instrumentation Male Middle Aged Retrospective Studies Silicones Treatment Outcome
Online-Zugang:	Volltext
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

container_end_page	139
container_issue	3
container_start_page	135
container_title	B-ENT (Leuven)
container_volume	4
creator	Erkan, A N Yilmazer, C Altan-Yaycioglu, R Akkuzu, B Aktaş, L
description	We compared the efficacy of T-tubes and bicanalicular silicone tubes in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). We retrospectively reviewed 54 eyes of 49 patients who had experienced nasolacrimal duct obstruction and undergone endoscopic DCR. Group one had bicanalicular silicone tube stents implanted (24 eyes), and group two consisted of patients who had otologic T-tubes (30 eyes). The duration of stent placement, follow-up time, and the subjective and objective success of the procedures were evaluated. Cases were grouped as failure or success according to improvement in epiphora complaint. An endoscopic DCR procedure was successful in 19 (79.2%) cases in the silicone group and in 23 (76.7%) cases in the T-tube group. The success rate did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.83). The most common cause of failure was granuloma formation in the bicanalicular silicone tube group and spontaneous tube loss in the otologic T-tube group. The findings revealed that both the otologic T-tube and the bicanalicular silicone tube had similar success rates (76.7% and 79.2%, respectively). We believe that otologic T-tubes, which are less expensive and more easily acquired, might be offered as an alternative to bicanalicular silicone tubes in patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction.
format	Article
fullrecord	<record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69708916</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>69708916</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p209t-f1a47271cb3d2f5027f234fd72103900e03147e0294b57d1f02184636446baf03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kEtLxDAYRbNQnGGcvyBZuSt8ebRpljr4ggE3I7oraR4aSZOatEL_vQMzrs7lcriLe4HWRLSkEi39WKFtKd8AQASn0LArtCKt5FLWco3e771WUQWv56AyLv6YUrR4mntb8K_NZS44TSmkT6_xoTr1PmIbTYqqqICN0nlJeilTyl8-piOH5RpdOhWK3Z65QW-PD4fdc7V_fXrZ3e2rkYKcKkcUF1QQ3TNDXQ1UOMq4M4ISYBLAAiNcWKCS97UwxAElLW9Yw3nTKwdsg25Pu2NOP7MtUzf4om0IKto0l66RAlpJmqN4cxbnfrCmG7MfVF66_yvYHzcCWwI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69708916</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bicanalicular silicone tubes versus otologic T-tubes in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Erkan, A N ; Yilmazer, C ; Altan-Yaycioglu, R ; Akkuzu, B ; Aktaş, L</creator><creatorcontrib>Erkan, A N ; Yilmazer, C ; Altan-Yaycioglu, R ; Akkuzu, B ; Aktaş, L</creatorcontrib><description>We compared the efficacy of T-tubes and bicanalicular silicone tubes in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). We retrospectively reviewed 54 eyes of 49 patients who had experienced nasolacrimal duct obstruction and undergone endoscopic DCR. Group one had bicanalicular silicone tube stents implanted (24 eyes), and group two consisted of patients who had otologic T-tubes (30 eyes). The duration of stent placement, follow-up time, and the subjective and objective success of the procedures were evaluated. Cases were grouped as failure or success according to improvement in epiphora complaint. An endoscopic DCR procedure was successful in 19 (79.2%) cases in the silicone group and in 23 (76.7%) cases in the T-tube group. The success rate did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.83). The most common cause of failure was granuloma formation in the bicanalicular silicone tube group and spontaneous tube loss in the otologic T-tube group. The findings revealed that both the otologic T-tube and the bicanalicular silicone tube had similar success rates (76.7% and 79.2%, respectively). We believe that otologic T-tubes, which are less expensive and more easily acquired, might be offered as an alternative to bicanalicular silicone tubes in patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1781-782X</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18949959</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Belgium</publisher><subject>Adult ; Cohort Studies ; Dacryocystorhinostomy - instrumentation ; Endoscopy ; Equipment Design ; Female ; Humans ; Intubation - instrumentation ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Retrospective Studies ; Silicones ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>B-ENT (Leuven), 2008-01, Vol.4 (3), p.135-139</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18949959$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Erkan, A N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yilmazer, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Altan-Yaycioglu, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akkuzu, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aktaş, L</creatorcontrib><title>Bicanalicular silicone tubes versus otologic T-tubes in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy</title><title>B-ENT (Leuven)</title><addtitle>B-ENT</addtitle><description>We compared the efficacy of T-tubes and bicanalicular silicone tubes in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). We retrospectively reviewed 54 eyes of 49 patients who had experienced nasolacrimal duct obstruction and undergone endoscopic DCR. Group one had bicanalicular silicone tube stents implanted (24 eyes), and group two consisted of patients who had otologic T-tubes (30 eyes). The duration of stent placement, follow-up time, and the subjective and objective success of the procedures were evaluated. Cases were grouped as failure or success according to improvement in epiphora complaint. An endoscopic DCR procedure was successful in 19 (79.2%) cases in the silicone group and in 23 (76.7%) cases in the T-tube group. The success rate did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.83). The most common cause of failure was granuloma formation in the bicanalicular silicone tube group and spontaneous tube loss in the otologic T-tube group. The findings revealed that both the otologic T-tube and the bicanalicular silicone tube had similar success rates (76.7% and 79.2%, respectively). We believe that otologic T-tubes, which are less expensive and more easily acquired, might be offered as an alternative to bicanalicular silicone tubes in patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Dacryocystorhinostomy - instrumentation</subject><subject>Endoscopy</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intubation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Silicones</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1781-782X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo1kEtLxDAYRbNQnGGcvyBZuSt8ebRpljr4ggE3I7oraR4aSZOatEL_vQMzrs7lcriLe4HWRLSkEi39WKFtKd8AQASn0LArtCKt5FLWco3e771WUQWv56AyLv6YUrR4mntb8K_NZS44TSmkT6_xoTr1PmIbTYqqqICN0nlJeilTyl8-piOH5RpdOhWK3Z65QW-PD4fdc7V_fXrZ3e2rkYKcKkcUF1QQ3TNDXQ1UOMq4M4ISYBLAAiNcWKCS97UwxAElLW9Yw3nTKwdsg25Pu2NOP7MtUzf4om0IKto0l66RAlpJmqN4cxbnfrCmG7MfVF66_yvYHzcCWwI</recordid><startdate>20080101</startdate><enddate>20080101</enddate><creator>Erkan, A N</creator><creator>Yilmazer, C</creator><creator>Altan-Yaycioglu, R</creator><creator>Akkuzu, B</creator><creator>Aktaş, L</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080101</creationdate><title>Bicanalicular silicone tubes versus otologic T-tubes in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy</title><author>Erkan, A N ; Yilmazer, C ; Altan-Yaycioglu, R ; Akkuzu, B ; Aktaş, L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p209t-f1a47271cb3d2f5027f234fd72103900e03147e0294b57d1f02184636446baf03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Dacryocystorhinostomy - instrumentation</topic><topic>Endoscopy</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intubation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Silicones</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Erkan, A N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yilmazer, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Altan-Yaycioglu, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akkuzu, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aktaş, L</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>B-ENT (Leuven)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Erkan, A N</au><au>Yilmazer, C</au><au>Altan-Yaycioglu, R</au><au>Akkuzu, B</au><au>Aktaş, L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bicanalicular silicone tubes versus otologic T-tubes in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy</atitle><jtitle>B-ENT (Leuven)</jtitle><addtitle>B-ENT</addtitle><date>2008-01-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>135</spage><epage>139</epage><pages>135-139</pages><issn>1781-782X</issn><abstract>We compared the efficacy of T-tubes and bicanalicular silicone tubes in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). We retrospectively reviewed 54 eyes of 49 patients who had experienced nasolacrimal duct obstruction and undergone endoscopic DCR. Group one had bicanalicular silicone tube stents implanted (24 eyes), and group two consisted of patients who had otologic T-tubes (30 eyes). The duration of stent placement, follow-up time, and the subjective and objective success of the procedures were evaluated. Cases were grouped as failure or success according to improvement in epiphora complaint. An endoscopic DCR procedure was successful in 19 (79.2%) cases in the silicone group and in 23 (76.7%) cases in the T-tube group. The success rate did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.83). The most common cause of failure was granuloma formation in the bicanalicular silicone tube group and spontaneous tube loss in the otologic T-tube group. The findings revealed that both the otologic T-tube and the bicanalicular silicone tube had similar success rates (76.7% and 79.2%, respectively). We believe that otologic T-tubes, which are less expensive and more easily acquired, might be offered as an alternative to bicanalicular silicone tubes in patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction.</abstract><cop>Belgium</cop><pmid>18949959</pmid><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext	fulltext
identifier	ISSN: 1781-782X
ispartof	B-ENT (Leuven), 2008-01, Vol.4 (3), p.135-139
issn	1781-782X
language	eng
recordid	cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69708916
source	MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects	Adult Cohort Studies Dacryocystorhinostomy - instrumentation Endoscopy Equipment Design Female Humans Intubation - instrumentation Male Middle Aged Retrospective Studies Silicones Treatment Outcome
title	Bicanalicular silicone tubes versus otologic T-tubes in endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy
url	https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T15%3A45%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bicanalicular%20silicone%20tubes%20versus%20otologic%20T-tubes%20in%20endonasal%20dacryocystorhinostomy&rft.jtitle=B-ENT%20(Leuven)&rft.au=Erkan,%20A%20N&rft.date=2008-01-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=135&rft.epage=139&rft.pages=135-139&rft.issn=1781-782X&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E69708916%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69708916&rft_id=info:pmid/18949959&rfr_iscdi=true