Objective To compare the clinical outcomes, including efficacy and complications, of Merocel versus Nasopore as a nasal packing material after nasal surgery. Methods Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified from electronic databases (The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Chinese Biomedical Database). Conference proceedings and references from identified trials and review articles were also searched. Outcome measures were pain during nasal packing, pain and bleeding upon packing removal, pressure sensation, nasal blockage, formation of synechiae, mucosal healing, and patients' general satisfaction. Results Seven randomized controlled trials met criteria for analysis. Compared with Merocel, Nasopore significantly reduced patients' subjective symptoms including in situ pain (pain experienced while packing is in place), nasal pressure, pain and bleeding during packing removal, and increased patients' general satisfaction with nasal packing. There were no significant differences in nasal obstruction, adhesion and mucosal healing between the Merocel and Nasopore groups. Conclusions Preliminary evidence suggests that Nasopore may be superior to Merocel as a nasal packing material with regard to in situ pain, pain and bleeding upon removal, pressure, and general satisfaction and does not differ from Merocel in terms of nasal obstruction, tissue adhesion, and long-term mucosal healing.
Dubin MR, Pletcher SD (2009) Postoperative packing after septoplasty: is it necessary? Otolaryngol Clin North Am 42: 279–285, viii–ix. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2009.01.015
[3]
Ardehali MM, Bastaninejad S (2009) Use of nasal packs and intranasal septal splints following septoplasty. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38: 1022–1024. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2009.05.012
[4]
Samad I, Stevens HE, Maloney A (1992) The efficacy of nasal septal surgery. J Otolaryngol 21: 88–91.
[5]
von Schoenberg M, Robinson P, Ryan R (1993) Nasal packing after routine nasal surgery–is it justified? J Laryngol Otol 107: 902–905. doi: 10.1017/s0022215100124740
[6]
Kim YS, Kim YH, Kim NH, Kim SH, Kim KR, et al. (2011) A prospective, randomized, single-blinded controlled trial on biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam as a packing material after septoplasty. Am J Rhinol Allergy 25: e77–79. doi: 10.2500/ajra.2011.25.3600
[7]
Yilmaz MS, Guven M, Elicora SS, Kaymaz R (2013) An evaluation of biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam in patients following septoplasty: a prospective randomized trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 148: 140–144. doi: 10.1177/0194599812465587
[8]
Shoman N, Gheriani H, Flamer D, Javer A (2009) Prospective, double-blind, randomized trial evaluating patient satisfaction, bleeding, and wound healing using biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam (NasoPore) as a middle meatal spacer in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 38: 112–118.
[9]
Wang YP, Wang MC, Chen YC, Leu YS, Lin HC, et al. (2011) The effects of Vaseline gauze strip, Merocel, and Nasopore on the formation of synechiae and excessive granulation tissue in the middle meatus and the incidence of major postoperative bleeding after endoscopic sinus surgery. J Chin Med Assoc 74: 16–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcma.2010.09.001
[10]
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med 3: e123–130. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
[11]
Hu J, Zhang S, Li X (2012) FESS postoperative application of Naxi cotton and expansion sponge nasal packing effect comparision. CUEH 8: 38–40.
[12]
Kim ST, Cho KB, Kang IG (2013) Preventive effects of polyurethane foam and polyvinyl acetate on bleeding and pain in young patients undergoing conchotomies. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 77: 113–116. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.10.007
[13]
Lu C, Ma YX, Dong BC, Zhang DX (2013) Comparative observation on the clinical usability of biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam and Merocel during functional endoscopic septoplasty. Chin J Otorhinolaryngol Integ Med 21: 184–186.
[14]
Qian D, Zhang HW, GAO CS, Yang Q, Li L, et al. (2013) Clinical observation on the usability of NasoPore in functional endoscopic septoplasty. Chin Med Guide 11: 272–273.
[15]
Stevens RW (1951) Nasal packing; the rubber pneumatic pack. AMA Arch otolaryngol 54: 191–194. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1951.03750080079013
[16]
Toback J, Fayerman JW (1983) Toxic shock syndrome following septorhinoplasty. Implications for the head and neck surgeon. Archives of otolaryngology (Chicago, Ill: 1960) 109: 627–629. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1983.00800230063016
[17]
Taasan V, Wynne JW, Cassisi N, Block AJ (1981) The effect of nasal packing on sleep-disordered breathing and nocturnal oxygen desaturation. The Laryngoscope 91: 1163–1172. doi: 10.1288/00005537-198107000-00015
[18]
Nunez DA, Martin FW (1991) An evaluation of post-operative packing in nasal septal surgery. Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences 16: 549–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2273.1991.tb00971.x
[19]
Bajaj Y, Kanatas AN, Carr S, Sethi N, Kelly G (2009) Is nasal packing really required after septoplasty? International journal of clinical practice 63: 757–759. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01799.x
[20]
Kastl KG, Betz CS, Siedek V, Leunig A (2009) Effect of carboxymethylcellulose nasal packing on wound healing after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. American journal of rhinology & allergy 23: 80–84. doi: 10.2500/ajra.2009.23.3267
[21]
Antisdel JL, West-Denning JL, Sindwani R (2009) Effect of microporous polysaccharide hemospheres (MPH) on bleeding after endoscopic sinus surgery: randomized controlled study. Otolaryngology–head and neck surgery: official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 141: 353–357. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2009.06.078
[22]
Athanasiadis T, Beule AG, Robinson BH, Robinson SR, Shi Z, et al. (2008) Effects of a novel chitosan gel on mucosal wound healing following endoscopic sinus surgery in a sheep model of chronic rhinosinusitis. The Laryngoscope 118: 1088–1094. doi: 10.1097/mlg.0b013e31816ba576
[23]
Kennedy DW (1998) Middle turbinate resection: evaluating the issues–should we resect normal middle turbinates? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 124: 107. doi: 10.1001/archotol.124.1.107
[24]
Arya AK, Butt O, Nigam A (2003) Double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing Merocel with Rapid Rhino nasal packs after routine nasal surgery. Rhinology 41: 241–243.
[25]
Wormald PJ, Boustred RN, Le T, Hawke L, Sacks R (2006) A prospective single-blind randomized controlled study of use of hyaluronic acid nasal packs in patients after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol 20: 7–10.
[26]
Pomerantz J, Dutton JM (2005) Platelet gel for endoscopic sinus surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 114: 699–704.
[27]
Vaiman M, Eviatar E, Segal S (2002) Effectiveness of second-generation fibrin glue in endonasal operations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 126: 388–391. doi: 10.1067/mhn.2002.123345
[28]
Vaiman M, Eviatar E, Segal S (2002) The use of fibrin glue as hemostatic in endonasal operations: a prospective, randomized study. Rhinology 40: 185–188.
[29]
Weber R, Hochapfel F, Draf W (2000) Packing and stents in endonasal surgery. Rhinology 38: 49–62.
[30]
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2010) CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC med 8: 18. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-18
