RESUMO
Although conventional septoplasty is widely used to treat nasal septum deviation, it increases morbidity due to poor visualization, poor illumination, the need for nasal packing, and difficulty in evaluating of the exact pathology. These drawbacks are also encountered in endoscopic septoplasty. Our study aimed to compare the treatment and complication outcomes of conventional and endoscopic septoplasty. Methods: The authors searched five electronic databases for relevant clinical trials. The records were screened for eligibility. Data were extracted from the included studies. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences with 95% CIs using RevMan ver.5.4. Results: Our study included 13 randomized clinical trials with 735 patients. Our analysis revealed that endoscopic septoplasty was significantly (P<0.05) superior to conventional septoplasty for postoperative nasal obstruction relief, intraoperative and postoperative hemorrhage, and mucosal adhesion and synechiae across both long-term and short-term follow-ups. The following pooled RR values were found in short-term follow-up periods: [RR=1.20, 95% CI:=(1.09,1.32)]; [RR=0.27, 95% CI=(0.14,0.54)]; and [RR=0.16, 95% CI=(0.08,0.32)], respectively. Regarding persistent septal deviation and septal tear, endoscopic septoplasty had the upper hand only in short-term follow-up periods [RR=0.30, 95% CI=(0.17,0.53)] and [RR=0.26, 95% CI=(0.15,0.46)], respectively. Conclusion: Our analysis revealed that endoscopic septoplasty was significantly superior to conventional septoplasty in postoperative nasal obstruction relief rate and reducing the risk of intraoperative and postoperative hemorrhage, mucosal adhesion and synechiae, persistent septal deviation, septal tear, and surgery duration.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although several studies have commented on causes of dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) failure, detailed description of anatomical findings in such cases remains insufficient. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was primarily to analyze radiologic, endoscopic, and intraoperative findings in patients presenting with failed DCR and secondarily to assess the outcome of revision endoscopic DCR (endo-DCR) carried out at our institution. METHODS: Twenty-four failed DCRs presenting to our tertiary care center were retrospectively analyzed. Data collection included patients' history, diagnostic, and management data, as well as thorough analysis of sinonasal CT scans, along with endoscopic and intraoperative findings. Outcome was also assessed in 21 cases with revision endo-DCR performed. RESULTS: The anterior part of uncinate process was not previously removed in 15 sides (62.5%), with unopened agger nasi in 13 sides (54.2%). The lacrimal bone was detected covering the posterior sac despite removal of the anterior ascending process of maxilla in 9 sides (37.5%). Rhinostoma was anterior to lacrimal sac in 2 sides (8.3%) and was below the sac in 7 sides (29.2%). Fibrous membrane covered the rhinostoma despite removal of all sac-overlying bones in 6 sides (25%). Other findings included intranasal adhesions, septal deviation, lateralized middle turbinate, granulation tissue, foreign body reaction, and chronic sinusitis. Nineteen of the 21 revision endo-DCRs were successful (90.5%). CONCLUSION: This study provides a precise anatomical description of findings in cases of failed DCR. Such information is paramount in helping surgeons enhance their learning curve, refine the surgical technique, and improve patients' outcome.