Observational studyEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2024
Endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: impact of long-standing disease on surgical outcomes.
Observational study in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Twenty years of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: evolution of surgical technique and outcomes in a high-volume tertiary center.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess whether the duration of disease may influence the surgical success of Endonasal Endoscopic DCR (EE-DCR) in patients affected by nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO).
methodsSingle-center observational retrospective analysis on EE-DCR via posterior trans-ethmoidal approach. Consecutive patients were enrolled in 2021-2024 and evaluated with proper questionnaires; resolution of epiphora and dacryocystitis were analyzed after 1 (T1) and 6-months (T2) from surgery. Surgical success was defined as anatomical (patency at irrigation, no recurring dacryocystitis) or complete (zeroing of Munk score). Also, patients were asked to complete the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at each timepoint. The sample was divided based on the duration of disease (group A: ≤ 24 months, group B: > 24 months).
resultsNinety-one patients were included. At baseline no differences were observed between the two groups. At both timepoints, Munk score was significantly lower in Group A compared to Group B, while a difference in dacryocystitis rate was observed only at T2. Anxiety scores differed significantly at T2, although no differences were observed for depression. At paired analysis, all groups improved significantly at T1 compared to baseline, whereas no further improvement was observed between T2 and T1. A significantly higher improvement was observed in group A for the Munk and HADS-A scores over timepoints, whereas there was no significance for dacryocystitis rate and HADS-D. Also, group A showed a higher complete success rate compared to group B (p = 0.041). Finally, linear regression confirmed a positive relationship between Munk and anxiety scores and the duration of disease at T2.
conclusionsOur findings showed that long-lasting NLDO symptoms may be associated with worse EE-DCR surgical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39271593What 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.