A common complication of bicanalicular intubation is dislocation of the silicone tube.

Eleven patients with prolapsed silicone tubes who had undergone bicanalicular nasal intubation were injected with a 2 per cent lidocaine solution to infiltrate the lacrimal duct mucosa. A memory wire probe was used to pull a 4-0 suture through the lacrimal passage retrogradely, allowing the suture to grab the silicone tube. Paraffin oil was applied to the contact part of the rope and the silicone tube, then the distal end of the silk thread was removed from the nostril until the tube was pulled into place.

The prolapsed silicone tubes were restored by surgery in nine patients, with the drainage tube in the correct position in the eye and the lacrimal duct irrigation unobstructed.

The optimisations made in this study are considered effective adjustments of reduction surgery for a prolapsed silicone tube.

Nasolacrimal duct obstruction is the most common cause of epiphora in children. Management has classically focused on probing and syringing followed by stent insertion and dacryocystorhinostomy either externally or endonasally. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of these procedures.

This was a retrospective analysis of the outcomes of all patients under the age of 16 who have undergone a surgical lacrimal intervention for nasolacrimal duct obstruction under general anaesthetic over a 10-year period. Outcomes included success rates and complications.

A total of 432 patients were identified. Primary probe and syringing had a success rate of 83 per cent. Primary endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy had a success rate of 71 per cent, and revision surgery had a success rate of 82 per cent.

Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy is an effective and safe technique for the treatment of epiphora, and this study has provided a suggested protocol for management of patients presenting with epiphora.

This study aimed to compare two endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy techniques: lacrimal and double nasal mucosal flaps, and endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy without flap preservation.

This study was designed as a prospective randomised, controlled trial. Mucosal healing, granulation tissue formation and mucosal scar contracture were investigated after the surgery.

Ninety patients were included in the study (lacrimal and double nasal mucosal flaps, 46; endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy without flap preservation, 44). Nine (18.8 per cent) patients in the endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy without flap preservation group and two patients (4.2 per cent) in the lacrimal and double nasal mucosal flaps group had inadequate wound healing (p = 0.025). Granulation tissue formation was detected in nine patients (18.8 per cent) in the endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy without flap preservation group and in 1 patient (2.1 per cent) in the lacrimal and double nasal mucosal flaps group (p = 0.008). Functional success rates in the endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy without flap preservation and lacrimal and double nasal mucosal flaps groups were 89.6 per cent and 97.9 per cent, respectively (p = 0.092). The operation time was similar in both groups (p = 0.122).

The double mucosal flaps technique is a surgical procedure with satisfactory outcomes for the repair of mucosal defects and related issues.

External dacryocystorhinostomy is thought to cause mucociliary dysfunction by damaging the mucosa, in turn affecting ciliary activity and mucus quality. This study investigated the effect of external dacryocystorhinostomy on sinonasal function.

Patients scheduled for unilateral external dacryocystorhinostomy who underwent endoscopic nasal examination and paranasal sinus computed tomography were included in this study. A saccharine test was performed on the planned surgical side and the mucociliary clearance time was determined. The sinonasal quality of life was measured in all patients, pre-operatively and at six months post-operatively, using the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22. The Lund–Kennedy endoscopic score was also determined in all patients, both pre- and post-operatively.

The study comprised 28 patients (22 females and 6 males). A statistically significant difference was found between the pre- and post-operative saccharine test results (p = 0.006), but not between the pre- and post-operative Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 scores (p > 0.05).

This study is one of only a few to investigate the effect of external dacryocystorhinostomy on sinonasal function. The results showed that external dacryocystorhinostomy impairs mucociliary clearance. The surgical procedure is well tolerated and does not significantly change nasal symptom scores.

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.

This prospective, controlled study assessed how placing a stent into a newly formed ostium affects ostial patency, success and complication rates in endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy patients.

In group 1 (40 eyes of 36 patients), both silicone tube intubation and tube stenting were performed. In group 2 (36 eyes of 34 patients), only silicone tube intubation was performed. Success, operative time and post-surgical complications were investigated two months post-operatively in each group.

The success rates were 92.5 per cent and 83.3 per cent for groups 1 and 2 respectively, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.294). The complication rates also differed between the two groups, but this was again insignificant.

Compared with the use of a silicone tube alone, the addition of an ostial stent did not significantly increase the success rate of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy.

This paper presents modifications to powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy without stenting for the management of acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

A retrospective, non-randomised review.

A total of 105 patients with epiphora secondary to acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction were operated on by our modified powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy approach.

Of 105 patients, 100 (95.2 per cent) have remained asymptomatic. One patient with a narrow ostium had improved symptoms, while four patients continued to experience persistent symptoms (treatment failures).

The modified powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy approach led to excellent results, without bone exposure and granulations, and with early mucosalisation.

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.

Nasolacrimal duct tumours are rare and are often found inadvertently during dacryocystorhinostomy. Anecdotal case reports have been published, mostly in ophthalmology journals. Since the era of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, such cases are more frequently encountered by ENT surgeons.

This paper reports a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy over the last 10 years in our dedicated epiphora clinic. It also provides a systematic literature review of nasolacrimal duct tumour cases published in English over the last 16 years.

Four of 525 endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy procedures exposed a tumour (inverted papilloma, oncocytoma, lymphoma and solitary fibrous tumour). The literature review revealed 118 published case reports. Papilloma was the most frequently reported benign tumour and lymphoma was the most common malignant tumour.

Since the advent of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy, tumours are being diagnosed relatively early when smaller in size. Because of the rarity of this condition, it is advisable that such cases are managed through a dedicated epiphora service framework.

Dacryoliths are concretions formed in the lacrimal sac from cellular debris and proteins, which may calcify and cause further obstruction of the nasolacrimal pathway. Dacryoliths are often underlying contributors in cases of intermittent or chronic dacryocystitis (i.e. nasolacrimal sac inflammation, characterised by epiphora, pain, erythema, sac dilation and lacrimal punctum swelling).

We report an unusual case of dacryolith resulting in obstructive epiphora, managed via an endonasal endoscopic approach.

Case report and literature review pertaining to dacryolith.

A 54-year-old man attended the multidisciplinary nasolacrimal clinic due to recurrent epiphora. Obstructive epiphora secondary to chronic dacryocystitis was diagnosed. He underwent endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Intra-operatively, a large dacryolith was found to be the cause of epiphora.

Dacryolith is an unusual cause of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. This case highlights this unusual cause, and the relevant diagnostic investigations. This case also illustrates successful endonasal endoscopic management, rather than an external, open approach.

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.

To assess the efficacy of an endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy technique using conventional instruments, without the use of any adjunctive techniques.

Prospective, non-randomised, cohort study.

Patients diagnosed with nasolacrimal duct obstruction between January 2006 and December 2008 were included in the study. Seventy-eight endonasal dacryocystorhinostomies (primary or revision) were performed with conventional ‘cold steel’ instruments. The technique involved complete exposure and marsupialisation of the lacrimal sac. No adjunctive procedures were used. Success was defined as complete resolution of epiphora and a patent lacrimal system, evaluated by lacrimal irrigation and endoscopy, one year post-operatively.

Seventy-four of the 78 cases were symptom-free after a minimum follow up of 12 months, giving an overall success rate of 94.9 per cent. The success rates for primary and revision cases were 95.5 and 90.9 per cent, respectively.

Meticulous surgical technique can ensure high success rates with the use of conventional cold steel instruments, without the use of adjunctive procedures, making endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy a cost-effective, reliable procedure.

To evaluate the results of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy performed to treat acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Retrospective analysis of the outcome of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy performed in the conventional manner (i.e. without power instruments or laser) to treat acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

Outcomes for 300 patients with acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction were evaluated. Cases with congenital or traumatic blockages were excluded. All the cases were evaluated for nasolacrimal duct blockage by the syringing and regurgitation test. Surgery was performed under local anaesthesia with sedation. Follow up was conducted by syringing and nasal endoscopy, up to one year. Results were compared with published data for endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy.

Outcomes were evaluated subjectively using patient symptoms, syringing results and endoscopic appearance. All cases were symptom-free following endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Revision surgery was performed in 18 cases. Stents were placed in 10 patients, of which two developed granulations. Septoplasty was performed in 25 cases to gain access to the lacrimal sac area.

The results were comparable with published data for endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy.

To describe a new endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy technique and to assess its efficacy.

Prospective, non-randomised, interventional case series.

Patients with primary nasolacrimal duct obstruction were included. A prospective series of 226 consecutive endoscopic transnasal dacryocystorhinostomies performed between January 2003 and December 2006 were entered into the study. Patients who had undergone previous lacrimal surgery were excluded. The surgical technique involved the creation of nasal mucosal and large posterior lacrimal flaps at the medial lacrimal sac wall. The two flaps were placed in close apposition. The technique also involved creation of a large bony ostium.

Success was defined as the resolution of symptoms, or unobstructed lacrimal irrigation and endoscopic visualisation of a patent rhinostomy.

A total of 226 consecutive endoscopic transnasal dacryocystorhinostomy procedures performed between January 2003 and December 2006 were reviewed. The main presentation was with epiphora (95 per cent) and/or mucocele (13 per cent). Septoplasty was performed in 36 per cent of cases at the time of surgery. In 18 per cent of cases, endoscopic sinus surgery was also added to the procedure. The follow-up period ranged from six months to two years. Of the 226 patients, eight were lost to follow up and were thus excluded from the series. The procedure achieved a 92 per cent success rate, in terms of symptom relief and anatomical success.

The described technique of endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy had a success rate comparable to that of external dacryocystorhinostomy. The procedure is simple and cost-effective because it does not require sophisticated equipment such as lasers, optical fibres, silicone stents or a microdebrider.

External dacryocystorhinostomy has been the treatment for nasolacrimal duct obstruction for more than a century. More recently, nasal endoscopy has allowed this procedure to be carried out endonasally.

The aim of this postal questionnaire study was to compare the health status of patients treated for epiphora by external versus endonasal non-laser dacryocystorhinostomy.

The Glasgow benefit inventory questionnaire, along with an additional, department-based symptomatic questionnaire, was distributed to all patients fitting our criteria.

Satisfactorily completed questionnaires were received from 64 out of 90 patients in the external group and from 30 of 41 patients in the endonasal group. Results indicated positive scores for both groups for all four subscales of the Glasgow benefit inventory. There were no statistically significant differences between results for the external and endonasal procedures. The ocular symptomatology questionnaire results indicated better scores for the external procedure, but this difference did not reach statistical significance.

Dacryocystorhinostomy via an endonasal route has been adopted in our department. This audit study describes and compares our results for external, laser endonasal and ‘cold steel’ endonasal techniques. Success was defined as a subjective report of eye watering being ‘better’ or ‘cured’. Data were obtained from a retrospective review of the medical records of all patients undergoing primary dacryocystorhinostomy in our department.

External dacryocystorhinostomy performed by a consultant ophthalmologist was taken as our gold standard. In our study, the success rate for external dacryocystorhinostomy was 94 per cent.

Our initial results for endonasal laser-assisted dacryocystorhinostomy produced a success rate of 64 per cent, which was significantly worse than that for external dacryocystorhinostomy. These results have been previously published.

Evidence suggested that cold steel endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy was more effective, and we adopted this as our technique of choice.

Over a four-year period, 57 cases completed a full nine months' follow up. 93 per cent were completed as day cases and 39 per cent were performed under local anaesthetic. The success rate was 79 per cent (45/57). There was no difference in success rates when this procedure was compared with external dacryocystorhinostomy (p = 0.55). The type of anaesthetic used (i.e. local vs general) made no difference to the success rate (p = 0.93).

Cold steel endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy was as effective as the gold standard, i.e. external dacryocystorhinostomy. Laser-assisted dacryocystorhinostomy was significantly less successful than external dacryocystorhinostomy. Due to the benefits of decreased operating time, lower morbidity and success under local anaesthetic, we recommend cold steel endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy as our procedure of choice for the treatment of epiphora.

We performed endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy in cases diagnosed with both anatomical and functional lacrimal obstruction, and here report results for the latter cases.

Sixty-eight endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomies were performed for functional obstruction on 44 patients. The indication for surgery was epiphora in 66 patients and recurrent dacryocystitis in two. The minimum follow up was six months.

There was complete cure in 44 (65 per cent) patients, partial cure in nine (13 per cent) and no improvement in 15 (22 per cent). Revision surgery was performed in five of the 15 cases with no improvement, after which there was an overall complete cure in 47 patients (69 per cent), partial cure in 10 (15 per cent) and no improvement in 11 (16 per cent).

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy is indicated in cases of epiphora with a diagnosis of functional lacrimal obstruction. Currently available investigations cannot reliably distinguish partial anatomical obstruction from pump failure.

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.