ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2023
Evaluation of the endoscopic revision of dacryocystorhinostomy failure cases: a cohort study.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical Outcomes of Revision Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy with or Without Concomitant Septoplasty: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Evaluating failed dacryocystorhinostomy using computed tomography dacryocystography: a preliminary analysis of bony ostium characteristics in an Asian population.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) procedure is linked to a high success rate; however, cases of tearing recurrence are not rare and should be managed efficiently. Thus, evaluating cases of DCR failure allows highlighting the factors significantly impacting the results in order to realize better controlled primary surgeries. Material and method: Twenty-eight patients were operated in our Otolaryngology Department for endoscopic revision of DCR failure between January 2019 and June 2022. Their clinical presentation, postoperative evolution, and findings of the primary and revision surgeries were assessed until the actual follow-up. Results: The first surgery was based on an external approach in 17 patients and the bicanalicular silicone tube intubation was kept for a mean of 4.25 months. The recurrence delay varied from 0.5 to 9 months. Revision surgery revealed synechia in 10 patients, a completely closed DCR ostium in 22 patients (78.57%) by mucosal scarring and granulation, and lacrimal sac fibrosis in 16 patients (57.14%). A significant correlation was found between maintenance of the silicone intubation tube greater than or equal to 3 months and lacrimal sac fibrosis ( Conclusion: Thus, better controlled primary surgeries with optimal exposure, wild marsupialisation of the lacrimal sac and no longer systematic bicanalicular intubation which should be dedicated to difficult anatomies and canalicular affections should guarantee better functional results.
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.