Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:05:03.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of polyvinyl acetal sponge nasal packing on post-operative care of nasal polyposis patients: a randomised, controlled, partly blinded study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2012

B Saedi ,
M Sadeghi  and
S Farschi
B Saedi*
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
M Sadeghi
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
S Farschi
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
*
Address for correspondence: Dr B Saedi, Otolaryngology Research Center, Imam Khomeini Medical Center, Bagherkhan Street, Chamran Highway, Tehran 141973141, Iran Fax: 982166581628 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the effects of routine nasal packing with polyvinyl acetal sponge (Merocel) versus no packing, after endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyposis.

Subjects and methods:

This clinical, randomised, controlled trial was performed in an academic tertiary referral centre between 2008 and 2011. Sixty patients with resistant nasal polyposis underwent endoscopic sinus surgery, and were then randomly divided into two groups: packed and non-packed. The amount of bleeding and pain in each group during pack removal was documented.

Results:

There was no significant difference between the two groups in the outcome of surgery and complications. One patient in each group needed extra packing. In the packed group, the mean ± standard deviation pain score on pack removal was 61 ± 3 (using a visual analogue scale in which 0 = no pain and 100 = worst pain imaginable).

Conclusion:

This study found no significant difference between polyvinyl acetal packed and non-packed groups, following endoscopic sinus surgery for nasal polyposis. This confirms the findings of similar studies, and supports the reconsideration of routine post-operative packing in selected cases.

Keywords

Nasal PolypsPostoperative CareNasal CavityTampons, SurgicalParanasal Sinuses
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 126 , Issue 4 , April 2012 , pp. 380 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Chheda, N, Katz, A, Gynizio, L, Singer, A, Brook, S. The pain of nasal tampon removal after nasal surgery: a randomized control trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;140:215–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Orlandi, RR, Lanza, DC. Is nasal packing necessary following endoscopic sinus surgery? Laryngoscope 2004;114:1541–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Repanos, C, McDonald, SE, Sadr, AH. A survey of postoperative nasal packing among UK ENT surgeons. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266:1575–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Mo, J, Han, D, Shin, H, Cha, W, Chang, M, Jin, H. No packing versus packing after endoscopic sinus surgery: pursuit of patients' comfort after surgery. Am J Rhinol 2008;22:525–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Kastl, K, Betz, C, Siedek, V, Leunig, A. Effect of carboxymethylcellulose nasal packing on wound healing after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009;23:80–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Kastl, K, Betz, C, Siedek, V, Leunig, A. Control of bleeding following functional endoscopic sinus surgery using carboxy-methylated cellulose packing. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009;266:1239–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Bugten, V, Nordgård, S, Skogvoll, E, Steinsvåg, S. Effects of nonabsorbable packing in middle meatus after sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 2006;116:83–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Woodworth, B, Chandra, R, LeBenger, J, Ilied, B, Schlosser, R. A gelatin-thrombin matrix for hemostasis after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Otolaryngol 2009;30:49–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9David, J, Wright, E. Triamcinolone-impregnated nasal dressing following endoscopic sinus surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Laryngoscope 2010;120:1269–73Google Scholar
10Cruise, AS, Amonoo, K, Srouji, I, Kanagalingam, I, Georgalas, P, Badia, L et al. A randomized trial of Rapid Rhino Riemann and Telfa nasal packs following endoscopic sinus surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;31:25–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Arya, AK, Butt, O, Nigam, A. Double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing Merocel with Rapid Rhino nasal packs after routine nasal surgery. Rhinology 2003;41:241–3Google ScholarPubMed
12Szczygielski, K, Rapiejko, P, Wojdas, A, Jurkiewicz, D. Use of CMC foam sinus dressing in FESS. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;267:537–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Bugten, V, Nordgård, S, Steinsvåg, S. Long-term effects of postoperative measures after sinus surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008;265:531–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Valentine, R, Wormald, P-J. Nasal dressings after endoscopic sinus surgery: what and why? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;18:44–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Eliashar, R, Gross, M, Wohlgelernter, J, Sichel, J-Y. Packing in endoscopic sinus surgery: is it really required? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;134:276–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Shinkwin, CA, Beasley, N, Simo, R, Rushton, L, Jones, NS. Evaluation of Surgicel Nu-knit, Merocel and Vasolene gauze nasal packs: a randomized trial. Rhinology 1996;34:41–3Google ScholarPubMed
17Pringle, MB, Beasley, P, Brightwell, AP. The use of Merocel nasal packs in the treatment of epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 1996;110:543–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed