ReviewHNO2016
[Treatment of nasolacrimal duct obstruction from the otorhinolaryngologist's perspective].
Review in HNO, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epiphora and unrecognized paranasal sinuses pathology.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2020Article
- [Low-dose helical CT-dacryocystography in nasolacrimal duct obstruction-a prospective study].HNO · 2019Article
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpiphora is the classic symptom of nasolacrimal duct obstruction, particularly among elderly people. Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) via external (Toti) and endonasal (West) approaches are well-established surgical treatments.
objectiveThe aim of the present article is to describe the etiology and diagnostics of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Furthermore, treatment modalities are discussed according to the current literature, with particular consideration of the otorhinolaryngologist's perspective. MATERIALS AND
methodsA search of the current literature focused on the past 5 years was performed in PubMed.
resultsSeveral retrospective and prospective randomized studies describe the external and endonasal DCR approaches as safe surgical procedures, with high success rates of around 90 %. The endoscope is standardly used for visualization during the endonasal approach. Powered instruments such as diamond drills enable generation of a large rhinostomy, even in very hard bone. The application of silicone stents does not confer a significant additional advantage in terms of postoperative success rates.
conclusionDCR is a safe surgical procedure with high success rates. It can be strongly recommended for patients suffering from intra- or post-saccular nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Furthermore, the external and endonasal approaches (according to Toti and West, respectively) are comparable techniques. The use of silicone stents is indicated only in special cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.