Search

Purpose: To determine if patients with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO) have an increased prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) compared to the general population. Methods: Cross-sectional case-control study. The Mayo Clinic Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) is used to help physicians diagnose GERD. The retrospective group consisted of patients who previously had a dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) over a 4-year period by one surgeon (JTH) at one institution. The prospective group included consecutive patients undergoing DCR over an 8-month period for PANDO. The control group consisted of patients at our institution who did not have complaints related to nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) or a known history of NLDO. The RDQ score or a previous diagnosis of GERD was recorded for each patient. The prevalence of patients with GERD in each of the groups was compared to that in the control group using the Fisher exact test. Results: Nine (7.7%) of 117 patients in the control group were found to have GERD. Twenty-four of 65 (36.9%) patients in the retrospective cohort were found to have GERD. Twelve of 18 (66.7%) patients in the prospective cohort were found to have GERD. When the prospective and retrospective groups were compared to the control group, the presence of GERD was higher in patients with NLDO (p < .0001). Conclusion: Based on the results of this study and compared to the general population, GERD has an increased prevalence in patients with PANDO. GERD may have a role in the development of PANDO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Open versus endonasal resection of orbital apex (OA) tumors is generally based on tumor size, location, and pathology. For endonasal resection, two- and four-handed techniques have been reported, but whether one technique is more optimal based on these tumor features has not been evaluated. Objective: To determine whether two- versus four-handed techniques result in better outcomes after endoscopic resection of OA tumors, and whether either technique is better suited for intra- versus extraconal location and for benign versus malignant pathology. Methods: A retrospective review of all expanded endonasal approaches for OA tumors was performed at a single institution from 2009 to 2013. A PubMed database search was also performed to review series published on endonasal OA tumor resection. Across all the cases reviewed, the following data were recorded: two- versus four-handed techniques, intra- versus extraconal tumor location, and benign versus malignant pathology. The relationship between these variables and resection extent was analyzed by the Fisher exact test. Postoperative visual status and complications were also reviewed. Results: Ten cases from the institution and 94 cases from 17 publications were reviewed. Both two- and four-handed techniques were used to resect extra- and intraconal OA tumors, for both benign and malignant pathology. Four-handed techniques included a purely endonasal approach and a combined endonasal-orbital approach. On univariate analysis, the strongest predictor of complete resection was benign pathology (p = 0.005). No significant difference was found between the extent of resection and a two- versus a four-handed technique. Visual status was improved or unchanged in 94% of cases, and other complications were rare. Conclusion: Benign tumors that involve the medial extraconal and posterior inferomedial intraconal OA can be treated by either two- or four-handed endonasal techniques. Selecting two- versus four-handed techniques and endonasal versus endonasal-orbital four-handed techniques depends mainly on surgeons' experience. Endonasal approaches for malignant OA tumors are less likely to result in complete resection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]