Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 9469
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2002  |  Volume : 50  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 69-70

In reply


Correspondence Address:
S S Dhage


Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 12090095

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Dhage S S. In reply. Indian J Ophthalmol 2002;50:69-70

How to cite this URL:
Dhage S S. In reply. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2002 [cited 2020 Feb 23];50:69-70. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2002/50/1/69/14816

We thank Dr. S.S. Dhage for his interest in our article.[1] His reported experience is to be commended. However, as members of the ophthalmic community it is incumbent on us to offer our patients all the options available to alleviate their problems. Supported with the data presented in our paper it is possible to offer them an informed choice. Our paper does not recommend 5-Fluorouracil-augmented Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy (5 FU-ENL) for all patients; in no uncertain terms it spells out the lower success rate of a single procedure (94.7% for EXT-DCR versus 63.6% for 5 FU-ENL). The success rate increases with additional laser procedures.[2],[3]

Though at our centre one of the authors, an ENT surgeon (HW), has a particular interest in ENL and the procedure is performed as a team, currently in the UK the procedure is done by ophthalmologists independently. Both procedures cost the same in our health care system.

With reference to the points enumerated regarding the surgical techniques of EXT-DCR, it was not our intention to reiterate surgical principles that are well established. [4,5] Facial scaring, lacrimal pump failure, and bleeding are real problems in our group of patients and when offered an informed choice 90% of our patients elect to have ENL. This does not reflect the failure to adhere to sound surgical principles.



 
  References Top

1.
Watts P, Ram AR, Nair R. Williams H. Comparison of external dacryocystorhinstomy and 5-Fluorouracil augmented endonasal laser dacryocystorhinstomy. A retrospective review. Indian J Ophthalmol 2001;49:169-72.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Woog JJ, Metson R, Puliafito CA, Holmium: YAG endonasal laser dacryocystorhinostomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;116:1-10.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Kong YT, Kim TI, Kong BW. A report of 131 cases of Endoscopic Lase Lacrimal Surgery. Ophthalmology 1994;101:1793-1800.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Toti A. Nvovo metodo conservatore di cura radicale delle suppurazioni croniche del sacco lacrimale (Dacriocistorinostomia). Clin Mod Firenze 1904;10:385-87.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Dupuy-Dutemps, Bourguet. Procede plastique de dacryocystorhinostomie et ses resultats. Ann Ocul 1921;158:241-61.  Back to cited text no. 5
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1715    
    Printed85    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal