METHODS: A systematic review of publications related to TCL-DCR of the lacrimal duct from 2000 to March 2021 was carried out in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE LIBRARY databases. The search terms in Spanish and English were: «Endocanalicular laser», dacryocystorhinostomy or «primary DCR-L» or «laser» and «tear ducts».
RESULTS: After subjecting the articles to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we got 49 articles: 21 retrospective and 28 prospective studies. The bibliometric result obtained guaranteed, for this review, a level C recommendation according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network scale.
CONCLUSIONS: Currently, the classic TCL-DCR has lower success rates than its modifications, so we suggest using the latter. We prefer TCL-DCR with IS-MMC or TCDL associated with endoscopy techniques, without being able to opt for any option, since their success rates are very similar. We leave the choice to the discretion of the surgeon, depending on the management skills of endonasal techniques. More studies, with longer follow-up, and better defined criteria are necessary to clarify which is the best TCL-DCR technique.
方法:在MEDLINE中对2000年至2021年3月与泪道TCL-DCR有关的出版物进行了系统回顾,EMBASE和COCHRANE图书馆数据库。西班牙语和英语的搜索词是:“内分泌激光”,泪囊鼻腔吻合术或“原发性DCR-L”或“激光”和“泪管”。
结果:在对文章进行纳入和排除标准之后,我们获得了49篇文章:21项回顾性研究和28项前瞻性研究。获得的文献计量结果保证,对于这篇评论,根据苏格兰校际指南网络量表的C级推荐。
结论:目前,经典TCL-DCR的成功率低于其修改,所以我们建议使用后者。我们更喜欢TCL-DCR与IS-MMC或TCDL相关的内窥镜技术,无法选择任何选项,因为他们的成功率非常相似。我们将选择权留给外科医生,取决于鼻内技术的管理技能。更多研究,随着随访时间的延长,和更好定义的标准是必要的,以澄清哪一种是最好的TCL-DCR技术。