Non-endoscopic Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy

  • Suryasnata Rath
  • Samir Mahapatra
  • Peter J. Dolman


Caldwell [1] and Toti [2], respectively, described the endonasal and external approaches to dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) [1, 2]. Because of difficulty in visualizing the nasal cavity, the endonasal approach fell out of favor, and for the next 100 years, a slightly modified external approach remained the treatment of choice for Primary Acquired Nasolacrimal Duct Obstructions (PANDO). Interest in endonasal DCR saw resurgence around 1990 with the availability of rigid and fiber-optic imaging systems. Despite these advancements, identification of the precise site for DCR remained a concern, because of the possibility of injury to adjacent orbital and intracranial tissues. In 1990, Bruce Massaro introduced the concept of transilluminating the lacrimal sac with a vitrectomy light pipe [3]. Over the last two decades, the technique and technology in endonasal DCR has evolved to make this an effective, scarless option in the treatment of NLDO with several authors reporting success rates (≥90 %) equivalent to that of external DCR [4–6].


Middle Turbinate Medial Rectus Endonasal Approach Lateral Nasal Wall Light Pipe 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Caldwell GW. Two new operations for obstruction of the nasal duct with preservation of the canaliculi and an incidental description of a new lacrymal probe. N Y Med J. 1893;57:581–2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Toti A. Nuovometo do conservatore di curare di caledelle suppurazioni croniche del sacco lacrimale (dacriocistorinostomia). Clin Mod Firenze. 1904;10:385–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Massaro BM, Gonnering RS, Harris GJ. Endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. A new approach to nasolacrimal duct obstruction. Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108:1172–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dolman PJ. Comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy with non-laser endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:78–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tsirbas A, Wormald PJ. Endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy with mucosal flaps. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;135:76–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartikainen J, Grenman R, Puukka P, et al. Prospective randomized comparison of external dacyrocystorhinostomy and endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1106–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tarbet KJ, Custer PL. External dacryocystorhinostomy. Surgical success, patient satisfaction and economic costs. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:1065–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Razavi ME, Eslampoor A, Noorollahian M, et al. Non-endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy–technique, indications, and results. Orbit. 2009;28:1–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Preechawai P. Results of non-endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:1297–301.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Onerci M, Orhan M, Ogretmenoglu O, et al. Long-term results and reasons for failure of intranasal endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy. Acta Otolaryngol. 2000;120:319–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suryasnata Rath
    • 1
  • Samir Mahapatra
    • 2
  • Peter J. Dolman
    • 3
  1. 1.Ophthalmic Plastics SurgeryL.V. Prasad Eye InstituteBhubaneswarIndia
  2. 2.Ophthalmic Plastics SurgeryL.V. Prasad Eye InstituteVishakapatnamIndia
  3. 3.Ophthalmic Plastics SurgeryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations