MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073366593 · doi:10.1097/iop.0b013e3181b80af6

Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy: A Modified Technique With Preservation of the Nasal and Lacrimal Mucosa

2010· article· en· W2073366593 on OpenAlexaff
François Codère, Paul Denton, Jorge Corona

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNasolacrimal Duct Obstruction Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDacryocystorhinostomyLacrimal sacSurgeryMucous membrane of noseDacryocystitisNasolacrimal ductNasolacrimal duct obstructionLacrimal apparatusNasal boneMaxillaNoseNasal septumDentistryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In the last 15 years, endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (End-DCR) has become an alternative to external dacryocystorhinostomy. In most series reported, it appears that End-DCR had a higher failure rate than Ext-DCR. Uncontrolled epithelialization of the surgical site as compared with the fashioning of mucosal flaps may explain the somewhat lower success rate. The purpose of our study is to validate a modification of a new technique described by Tsirbas and Wormald in which the nasal mucosa is preserved and brought in contact with the lacrimal mucosa during End-DCR, leaving an epithelialized surgical site at the end of the operation. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed from November 2001 to January 2003. Patients with epiphora and or chronic or recurrent dacryocystitis were evaluated. Patients with symptomatic nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) and who met the criteria for End-DCR were selected. NLDO was diagnosed based on symptoms, along with a blocked irrigation or an abnormal bone substract dacryocystogram. The surgical procedure involved a manual osteotomy of the frontal process of the maxilla and removal of the lacrimal bone with the creation of posteriorly hinged lacrimal sac and nasal mucosal flaps. RESULTS: Forty-five patients underwent End-DCR with preservation of the lacrimal and nasal mucosa. Five patients had bilateral surgery. A total of 50 surgeries were performed. Twenty-four surgeries were performed on the right side and 26 on the left. Patients were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after surgery. Evaluation included asking about subjective symptoms of epiphora, lacrimal irrigation on the 3 visits, and endoscopic evaluation of the surgical site at 3 months. Surgery was considered successful when patients did have relief of their epiphora and had a patent system with irrigation. Forty-nine patients (98%) were asymptomatic at 1 month and at 3 months with both a patent system tested with irrigation and a patent ostium evaluated with the endoscope. One patient who had undergone bilateral surgery had blockage of the fistula on the left side at 3 months. The patient underwent endoscopic revision surgery and was patent 1 year afterward. A phone survey was performed from January to May 2008. Thirty-four patients (75%) were reached. Two patients were still tearing and were brought for reassessment. One had an open lacrimal system and one was blocked. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the concept of preserving the lacrimal and nasal mucosa through an endoscopic approach to treat NLDO. Early and controlled lining of the fistula with mucosal flaps appears to prevent closure of the ostium and leads to a high success rate comparable with that of external dacryocystorhinostomy. This can be accomplished successfully with a manual osteotomy thus avoiding the use of power drills and burrs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive SurgerySame topicNasolacrimal Duct Obstruction TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207