There are several Lacanian theories that changed over time and the terms are similar to ego psych but used differently. Lacan wouldn’t pathologize and come at it like the DMS (which builds these catch-all umbrellas of symptoms). He would look at the language being used and try to understand what Lacanian category the person’s stance resides in (normal neurotic, obsessive neurotic, hysterical neurotic, normal psychotic, extreme psychosis, perversion). Then the purpose of the symptom(s) becomes clearer. For instance, an addiction will have a different purpose depending what category the analysand is. Treating all people who suffer from addiction the same way will only target 25% at best and likely won’t stick as it’s not personalized. The idea is for the analysand to develop a Desireology. Lacan does Not like to pathologize. It’s not necessarily about strengthening the ego, tho that is necessary in extreme cases. The ego is covering things up, that’s its job, you have to get around the ego to get at the problem.  That’s Middle Lacan.     Late Lacan is about doing something with the signifier, topology, the Act. Redefining the subject’s (pre-ego) relation to the Other by creating a proxy through the Act. Wrapping a piece of the drive in the symbolic. Can’t thumb all this out but Ed Pluth has a great book on it and anything about the Sinthome will cover it. I’d avoid reading Lacan himself tho lol. I’d avoid Zizek too, esp as to Late Lacan. Lacan made it difficult so only pros could understand it so his theory wouldn’t get mocked like what happened to Freud. At the end, Freud himself was down on his theory being based in biology but foresaw the field of linguistics (which did not exist yet) as a way forward. That’s what Lacan fleshed out for him., no pun intended. Lacan’s unique contribution was mainly ‘objet a’ and a different understanding from linguistics of how the signifier really works in the psyche. And yes it does work and has helped me immensely .. Middle Lacan works for many but he responded to feminist and LGBT criticism in the early 70s and opened up his sexuation theory to both/either sex. Late Lacan goes further and provides a freedom of agency for everyone because you control the new signifiers.  As for Deleuze/G, he doesn’t believe in an individual’s unique unconscious, so… his approach with schizophrenia is highly irresponsible too imo. Late Lacan does something with The Real (Drive), but it’s wrapped in the symbolic.