Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorBulut, Asker
dc.contributor.authorAslan, Mehmet Gökhan
dc.contributor.authorÖner, Veysi
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-13T07:09:51Z
dc.date.available2023-01-13T07:09:51Z
dc.date.issued2021en_US
dc.identifier.citationBulut, A., Aslan, M. G., & Oner, V. (2021). Transcanalicular Multidiode Laser Versus External Dacryocystorhinostomy in the Treatment of Acquired Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction. Beyoglu eye journal, 6(4), 315–319. https://doi.org/10.14744/bej.2021.04934en_US
dc.identifier.issn2459-1777
dc.identifier.issn2587-0394
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.14744/bej.2021.04934
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11436/7433
dc.description.abstractObjectives: This study was a comparison of the outcomes of transcanalicular multidiode laser dacryocystorhinostomy (TCLDCR) and external dacryocystorhinostomy (EXDCR) treatment for patients with acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Methods: Thirty-one consecutive patients who underwent TCLDCR (TCLDCR group) and 68 consecutive patients who underwent EXDCR (EXDCR group) due to acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction were enrolled in the study. Follow-up visits were performed on the first day, and at the first week, first month, third month, sixth month, and every six months thereafter. Surgical success was defined as achievement of a patent osteotomy and a successful bicanalicular silicone intubation during the procedure. Anatomical success was defined by observation of a patent osteotomy on lacrimal irrigation, regardless of epiphora. The surgery time and intra- and postoperative complications were noted for each patient. Results: The TCLDCR group had a significantly shorter mean surgery time (27.9±5.5 minutes) compared with the EXDCR group (58.5±12.0 minutes) (p<0.001). However, the mean anatomical and functional rates of TCLDCR (58.0% and 54.8%, respectively) were significantly lower than those of the EXDCR group (94.1% and 91.1%, respectively) (both p<0.001). Two patients had "cheese wiring" damage of the lower canaliculus and 1 patient in the TCLDCR group had a full-thickness skin defect in the medial canthal region. No serious intra- or postoperative complication occurred in the EXDCR group. Conclusion: Although a TCLDCR procedure decreased the surgical time, it had a significantly lower success rate in the treatment of acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction compared to EXDCR. The decision of the type of surgery should be made based on the cosmetic and success expectations of the patients and the presence of systemic problems.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectAcquired nasolacrimal duct obstructionen_US
dc.subjectExternal dacryocystorhinostomyen_US
dc.subjectTranscanalicular multdiode laser dacryocystorhinostomyen_US
dc.titleTranscanalicular multidiode laser versus external dacryocystorhinostomy in the treatment of acquired nasolacrimal duct obstructionen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentRTEÜ, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümüen_US
dc.contributor.institutionauthorAslan, Mehmet Gökhan
dc.identifier.doi10.14744/bej.2021.04934en_US
dc.identifier.volume6en_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage315en_US
dc.identifier.endpage319en_US
dc.relation.journalBeyoglu Eye Journalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster