Management of the Nasolacrimal Duct in Expanded Endoscopic Approaches to the Maxillary Sinus: A Systematic Review with Evidence-based Recommendations

Background Utilizing expanded endoscopic approaches to the maxillary sinus for the endonasal management of a variety of tumors is increasing in popularity. The nasolacrimal duct (NLD) may be injured inadvertantly or need to be removed during tumor resection or to augment visualization. Management of the NLD can take the form of transection alone, transection with stenting, or performing a formal dacryocystorhinostomy to avoid postoperative sequelae of injury. The purpose of this study was to review the literature and determine the optimal management of the NLD during expanded maxillary sinus approaches. Methods A systematic review of Ovid, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies involving expanded approaches to the maxillary sinus and that explicitly reported the status of the NLD and postoperative outcomes. Results Nineteen studies were included in the analysis and divided into two groups: NLD-preserving (n = 9 studies; n = 191 patients in aggregate) and NLD-involving (n = 10 studies; n = 296 patients in aggregate). In the NLD-preserving subgroup, one patient out of a subgroup aggregate of 191 patients (0.5%) developed epiphora. In the NLD-involving subgroup, sharp transection alone was the most common method of NLD removal and was associated with a low rate of epiphora (study rates: 0 to 18.2%; aggregated subgroup rate: 7.0%, 21 / 296). Spontaneous resolution of symptoms was common (60%-100% cases). Conclusions The NLD should be preserved when feasible from an exposure and tumor-control perspective. When pathology or approach requires the removal of the NLD, rates of persistent epiphora are very low, regardless of surgical technique. When expanded maxillary approaches are employed, particularly for benign tumors, and require removal of the NLD, sharp transection is the simplest method of removal, provides a low rate of postoperative epiphora, and is supported by the available literature.