ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
To compare the efficacy of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy in the treatment of chronic dacryocystitis based on propensity score matching.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic dacryocystitis (CD) is mainly treated by surgery. Nasal dacryocystorhinostomy is divided into internal and external approaches. The efficacy and safety are controversial, and clinical studies are susceptible to bias due to the baseline characteristics of patients. Therefore, this retrospective, non-randomized study based on propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the therapeutic effects of endoscopic and external dacryocystorhinostomy.
methodsA total of 98 patients (98 eyes) with CD admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to December 2024 were retrospectively included in the study. According to different surgical plans, they were divided into the endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (EN-DCR) group (n = 54) and the external dacryocystorhinostomy (EDCR) group (n = 44). The PSM method was used to match the two groups of patients according to the nearest neighbor matching method 1: 1 (caliper value = 0.05). The therapeutic effect and perioperative indexes of the two groups were recorded. The lacrimal gland secretion function [tear film rupture time (BUT), Schirmer I test (SIT)], epiphora degree score, inflammatory indexes [serum interleukin-1β (IL-1β), matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2)] and complications before and after operation were compared.
resultsAfter matching, 34 patients in each group were included in the study. The total effective rate, operation time, hospitalization time and intraoperative blood loss in the EN-DCR group were better than those in the EDCR group (P < 0.05). After operation, the BUT of the EN-DCR group was higher than that of the EDCR group, and the SIT, epiphora score, IL-1β, MMP-3 and PGE2 levels of the EN-DCR group were lower than those of the EDCR group (P < 0.05). Compared with the EDCR group, the patency rate of lacrimal duct in the EN-DCR group was significantly increased at 2 and 6 months after operation, and the recurrence rate was significantly decreased (P < 0.05). The total incidence of complications in the EN-DCR group (2.94%) was significantly lower than that in the EDCR group (23.53%) (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThe therapeutic effect of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy in CD patients is better than that of external dacryocystorhinostomy.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered.
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.