Success rate of external, endonasal, and transcanalicular laser DCR with or without silicone stent intubation for NLD obstruction: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials


Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2023 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Review
  • Publication Date: 2023
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s00417-023-06089-y
  • Journal Name: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, EMBASE, Veterinary Science Database
  • Keywords: Dacryocystorhinostomy, DCR, Endoscopic, External, Meta-analysis, Silicone stent, Transcanalicular
  • Kayseri University Affiliated: No


Purpose: To define and compare the effectiveness of external dacryocystorhinostomy (EX-DCR), endonasal (EN-DCR), and transcanalicular laser-assisted (TL-DCR) with or without silicone stent (S) intubation. Methods: Studies were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and WoS. Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed and pooled estimations were expressed as risk ratio (RR). We included all original investigations of prospective, randomized controlled trials comparing success rate for any two of the following six surgical procedures: standard EX-DCR with or without S, cold EN-DCR with or without S, and TL-DCR with or without S. The primary outcome measure was the objective success rate. Results: Thirty-two studies with 3277 cases were included in the final quantitative analysis. TL-DCR with S was inferior to EN-DCR with S (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.05–1.37), EX-DCR with S (RR: 1.17 95% CI: 1.05–1.29), EN-DCR without S (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.03–1.35), and EX-DCR without S (RR: 1.15; 95%CI: 1.05–1.26) in frequentist statistics. No other statistical difference was found between other surgeries. When we excluded studies with additional interventions (nasal and revision surgery) for sensitivity analysis, 23 studies with 2468 cases were included to analysis. The success rates of TL-DCR with S and EN-DCR without S became similar (RR: 1.14 95% CI: 0.99–1.30) but there was no change in other outcomes. Similar results were found in Bayesian statistics. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was higher for EN-DCR with S (0.75), whereas it was higher for EX-DCR with S (0.56) after sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: Between endoscopic and external and transcanalicular laser without S procedures, there is no statistical difference. The rank probability showed that EN-DCR with S was a more appropriate surgical option when patients with nasal disease were included, whereas EX-DCR with S was a more appropriate surgical option when patients with nasal disease were excluded from the analysis.