Functional outcome of endoscopic and external dacrocystorhinostomy in a teaching hospital


  • Arvind Varma Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences, Patel Nagar, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, India
  • Sushobhan Dasgupta Department of Ophthalmology, Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences, Patel Nagar, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, India



Endoscopic endonasal DCR, External DCR, Idiopathic DCR, Post–traumatic DCR and revision DCR


Background: The objective of the study was to compare & analyse the results of two different techniques of dacrocystorhinostomy (endonasal and external) in different etiological groups.

Methods: This prospective study was carried out for nasolacrimal duct obstruction from October 2016 to October 2018 who underwent dacrocystorhinostomy by two different methods. The patient was divided into two groups one who underwent endonasal DCR (n=55) and another group who underwent external DCR (n=55). In each group they were subdivided into 3 groups on the basis of aetiology into idiopathic, post traumatic and revision cases. The results were evaluated in follow up period of 6 months. At the end of the study, decoding of the groups was done and the results were analysed statistically, using Chi Square test and student t-test, using SSPS III software. P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The success rate in endonasal DCR and external DCR was almost same in all the three groups (p>0.05).

Conclusions: This prospective study shows that both the methods have almost same success rate. This study also emphasises proper case selection and interdepartmental cooperation for optimum results.

Author Biography

Arvind Varma, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences, Patel Nagar, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, India


Department of Otorhinolaryngology




Hartikainen J, Antila J, Varpula M, Puukka P, Seppä H, Grenman R. Prospective randomized comparison of endonasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy. Laryngoscope 1998;108:1861–6.

Wormald PJ Powered endoscopic dacryocystor-hinostomy. Otolaryngol Clin N Am. 2006;39:539–49.

Mirza A, Al-Barmani A, Douglas SA, Bearn MA, Robson AK. A retrospective comparison of endonasal KTP laser dacryocystorhinostomy versus external dacryocystorhinostomy. Clin Otolaryngol. Allied Sci. 2002;27:347–51.

Sharma B. Non endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy versus external dacryocystorhinostomy. Kathmandu Univ Med J. 2008;6:437–42.

Tsirbas A, Davis G, Wormald PJ Revision dacryocystorhinostomy:a comparison of endoscopic and external techniques. Am J Rhinol. 2005:19:322–5.

Demarco R, Strose A, Araújo M, Valera FC, Moribe I, Anselmo-Lima WT Endoscopic revision of external dacryocystorhinostomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;137:497–9.

McLean CJ, Cree IA, Rose GE Rhinostomies:an open andshut case? Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:1300–1.

Jin HR, Yeon JY, Choi MY Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: creation of a large marsupialized lacrimal sac. J Korean Med Sci. 2006;21:719–23.

Woog JJ, Kennedy RH, Custer PL, Kaltreider SA, Meyer DR, Camara JG. Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:2369–77.

Ben Simon GJ, Joseph J, Lee S, Schwarcz RM, McCann JD, Goldberg RA. External versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy for acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction in a tertiary referral centre. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:1463–8.

Cokkeser Y, Evereklioglu C, Er H. Comparative external versus endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: results in 115 patients (130 eyes). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;123:488–91.

Ibrahim HA, Batterbury M, Banhegyi G, McGalliard J. Endonasal laser dacryocystor-hinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy outcome profile in a general ophthalmic service unit: a comparative retrospective study. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2001;32:220–7.






Original Research Articles