ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation in primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction: a comparative study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo observe the clinical efficacy of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (EN-DCR) with and without silicone intubation in treating primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO).
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled 115 PANDO patients. The patients were divided into two groups based on the treatment modalities they received. Group 1 comprised 61 patients who underwent EN-DCR without silicone intubation, while Group 2 consisted of 54 patients treated with EN-DCR combined with silicone intubation. Clinical outcomes were analyzed to assess treatment efficacy.
resultsThis study included 115 PANDO patients, 61 in Group 1 and 54 in Group 2. Baseline demographics and tear film parameters had no significant differences between the two groups preoperatively. Postoperatively, no significant differences were observed in tear film parameters, including tear film breakup time (BUT), lacrimal river height (LRH), and tear meniscus area (TMA) between the two groups. In addition, recurrence and complication rates did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, there was a significant difference in postoperative curative effect between the two groups. Group1 demonstrated superior results at 1-month follow-up postoperative (19.67% cure rate vs. 7.41% in Group2; P = 0.03), while Group2 showed better outcomes at 6-month follow-up (68.52% cure rate vs. 49.18% in Group1; P = 0.04). Additionally, Group 2 achieved significantly lower Munk scores at 6 months (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that EN-DCR is effective and safe for PANDO with or without silicone intubation. Notably, our findings clarify intubation’s role: EN-DCR without silicone intubation was associated with better outcomes at the 1‑month follow‑up, whereas the intubation group showed more favorable results at 6 months. This guides personalized decisions, bridging research and practice to optimize care.
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.