title: Time taken for superior osteotomy in primary powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy: is there a difference between an ultrasonic aspirator and a mechanical burr?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The purpose of this study is to report the time taken for superior osteotomy and complications during this step in primary powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (PEnDCR) using the piezoelectric system and mechanical burr.
  
  
  METHODS
  This prospective interventional comparative series was performed on all consecutive patients who underwent a primary PEnDCR over a 4-month period. The surgery was performed as per standard protocols and all patients were operated on by a single surgeon (M.J.A.). Parameters documented were demographic data, type of powered instrument used, time taken for superior osteotomy, exposure of the agger nasi, exposure of entire sac, and complications such as excess bleeding, soft tissue injury, or mucosal burns. Statistical analyses were performed using the linear mixed-effect model and 2-sample t tests.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 55 PEnDCRs were studied, 29 in the mechanical burr group and 26 in the piezoelectric or ultrasonic group. The mean time for superior osteotomy in the mechanical burr group was 3.71 minutes (range, 1.75 to 6.58 minutes); in the ultrasonic group it was 4.12 minutes (range, 1.33 to 6.25 minutes). There was no significant difference (p = 0.17) between the 2 groups. Subcategory analyses of time taken by age (p = 0.057) and sex (p = 0.56) did not show any difference between the groups. Two patients in the mechanical burr group had an insignificant superficial sac injury and 1 patient in the ultrasonic group suffered epithelial burns away from the site of osteotomy, which resolved spontaneously without any sequelae. There was no excess bleeding in any of the groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The time taken by mechanical burr and piezoelectric system are comparable for superior osteotomy in PEnDCR. If anatomical boundaries are respected, their use appears to be safe without major complications.
authors: Dacryology Service, L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
authors: Mohammad Javed
authors: MJ
authors: Ali
authors: Dacryology Service, L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
authors: Anasua
authors: A
authors: Ganguly
authors: Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
authors: Mohammad Hasnat
authors: MH
authors: Ali
authors: Dacryology Service, L.V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.
authors: Milind N
authors: MN
authors: Naik
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D003608:Dacryocystorhinostomy / Q000379:methods*; D004724:Endoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015508:Nasal Obstruction / Q000601:surgery*; D009301:Nasolacrimal Duct / Q000601:surgery; D061646:Operative Time; D010027:Osteotomy / Q000379:methods*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D014464:Ultrasonic Therapy / Q000379:methods; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: DCR; dacryocystorhinostomy; drill; mechanical; piezosurgery; time; ultrasound