ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Comparative outcomes of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy under local versus general anesthesia in elderly patients.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is a common procedure, typically performed under general anesthesia (GA), while performing it under local anesthesia (LA) may offer benefits to elderly or high-risk patients. This study evaluates the feasibility and surgical outcomes of endoscopic DCR under LA, with comparison to GA.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients aged 18 years or older with acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction who underwent Endoscopic DCR at a tertiary referral center between January 2019 and December 2024. Surgical outcomes were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age and sex, with propensity score-matched analyses as sensitivity analyses. Secondary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative bleeding, complications, predictors of failure and revision surgery. Furthermore, potential predictors were screened by univariable analyses, and variables with P < 0.15 were entered into multivariable models.
resultsThe study enrolled 210 eyes of 162 patients, with 117 patients (159 eyes) in the GA group, and 45 patients (51 eyes) in the LA group. The mean age was 61.7 ± 12.2 years in the GA group, and 72.3 ± 12.7 years in the LA groups. Surgical success was comparable between groups, with the LA group exhibiting a shorter operative time (P < 0.001). No major adverse events were reported. Small lacrimal sac size was identified as an independent associated factor of surgical failure (P < 0.001).
conclusionsLA offers a feasible alternative to GA for endoscopic DCR, particularly in elderly patient. Potential drawbacks include patient discomfort and an uncontrollable surgical field, which can be mitigated with appropriate patient selection.
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.