{Reference Type}: Meta-Analysis
{Title}: The efficacy of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy in the treatment of dacryocystitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
{Author}: Liu S;Zhang H;Zhang YR;Chen LJ;Yu XY;
{Journal}: Medicine (Baltimore)
{Volume}: 103
{Issue}: 11
{Year}: 2024 Mar 15
{Factor}: 1.817
{DOI}: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037312
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>This article aimed to discuss the efficacy and safety of endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (EDCR) versus external dacryocystorhinostomy (EX-DCR) for the treatment of dacryocystitis by meta-analysis.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>All randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were collected by searching the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang, from the establishment of the database to June 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 17.0 software and review manager 5.4 software. In the collected trials, the observation group was treated with EDCR, whereas the control group was treated with EX-DCR.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>A total of 10 studies involving 969 patients were included in this analysis. There was a similar surgical success rate in the treatment of dacryocystitis between the 2 groups (RR = 1.021, 95% CI [0. 803, 1.297], P = 0. 865). However, compared with the control group, patients in the observation group had a higher total effective rate of treatment (RR = 1. 195, 95% CI [1. 063, 1.343], P = .003), and shorter operative time (WMD = -23.640, 95% CI [-35.533, -11.747], P < .001), and less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -50.797, 95% CI [-80.339, -21.255], P = .001), shorter length of hospital stays (WMD = -4.570, 95% CI [-5.992, -3.148], P < .001), and lower incidence of adverse events (RR = 0.295, 95% CI [0.173, 0.504], P < .001).<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>EDCR is an effective and safe surgical procedure for the treatment of dacryocystitis and can be used as an alternative to EX-DCR.