Transcanalicular laser-assisted and external dacryocystorhinostomy anatomical and functional success in primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Khalid W Helmi, Ahmed S Abdulhamid, Mohammed S Alomari, Ali S Alsudais, Badran S Alqurashi, Abdullah Alsharif, Abdulrahman H Alzahrani, Abdulrahman M Bahalaq, Mohammed F Qutub, Hashem S Almarzouki
{"title":"Transcanalicular laser-assisted and external dacryocystorhinostomy anatomical and functional success in primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Khalid W Helmi, Ahmed S Abdulhamid, Mohammed S Alomari, Ali S Alsudais, Badran S Alqurashi, Abdullah Alsharif, Abdulrahman H Alzahrani, Abdulrahman M Bahalaq, Mohammed F Qutub, Hashem S Almarzouki","doi":"10.1186/s12886-024-03818-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO) is a condition in which tear ducts are blocked, leading to epiphora and dacryocystitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to measure the ability of transcanalicular dacryocystorhinostomy (TC-DCR) as an alternative approach to PANDO compared to traditional external dacryocystorhinostomy (EX-DCR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our search included Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We included only observational studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and quasi-experimental studies that compared TC-DCR and EX-DCR. The outcomes measured were anatomical and functional success rates, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and surgical time. Statistically significant results were determined as a p value of less than 0.05; thus, a confidence interval of 95% was used. Dichotomous outcomes were reported via risk ratios (RR), whereas continuous outcomes were reported using standardized mean differences (SMD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a statistically significant difference in anatomical success (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02), favoring EX-DCR; functional success (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.97; P = 0.01), favoring EX-DCR; operative (OR) time (SMD = -2.42, 95% CI -2.92 - -1.91; P < 0.00001) favoring TC-DCR; and intraoperative complications (RR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.43; P = 0.0003), favoring TC-DCR. Moreover, the subgroup analysis comparing single-diode TC-DCR to EX-DCR revealed a statistically significant difference in terms of anatomical success and functional success; however, the comparison of multidiode TC-DCR to EX-DCR revealed no statistically significant difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>More research should be conducted to compare the anatomical and functional success of muli-diode TC-DCR with EX-DCR because the analysis performed comparing them revealed no statistical significance.</p>","PeriodicalId":9058,"journal":{"name":"BMC Ophthalmology","volume":"25 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11702077/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03818-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO) is a condition in which tear ducts are blocked, leading to epiphora and dacryocystitis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to measure the ability of transcanalicular dacryocystorhinostomy (TC-DCR) as an alternative approach to PANDO compared to traditional external dacryocystorhinostomy (EX-DCR).
Methods: Our search included Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We included only observational studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and quasi-experimental studies that compared TC-DCR and EX-DCR. The outcomes measured were anatomical and functional success rates, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and surgical time. Statistically significant results were determined as a p value of less than 0.05; thus, a confidence interval of 95% was used. Dichotomous outcomes were reported via risk ratios (RR), whereas continuous outcomes were reported using standardized mean differences (SMD).
Results: There was a statistically significant difference in anatomical success (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02), favoring EX-DCR; functional success (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.97; P = 0.01), favoring EX-DCR; operative (OR) time (SMD = -2.42, 95% CI -2.92 - -1.91; P < 0.00001) favoring TC-DCR; and intraoperative complications (RR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.43; P = 0.0003), favoring TC-DCR. Moreover, the subgroup analysis comparing single-diode TC-DCR to EX-DCR revealed a statistically significant difference in terms of anatomical success and functional success; however, the comparison of multidiode TC-DCR to EX-DCR revealed no statistically significant difference.
Conclusions: More research should be conducted to compare the anatomical and functional success of muli-diode TC-DCR with EX-DCR because the analysis performed comparing them revealed no statistical significance.
期刊介绍:
BMC Ophthalmology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of eye disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.