أعضاء هيئة التدريس - جامعة بنها
Comparative study between absorbable and Non-Absorbable nasal packings after nasal surgeries
• 2021
معلومات البحث
المؤلفون
Ayman Abdelaal Mohamady, Hossam Abdelhay Gad, Ashraf Salah
El-Hamshary, Dalia Ragab Abd-Elmaksoud, Abd-Elhakeem Fouad Ghallab
الكلمات المفتاحية
absorbable packings, gelfoam, nasal surgeries, and sinufoam
المجلة العلمية
Not Available
الناشر
Not Available
المجلد
Not Available
العدد
Not Available
الصفحات
Not Available
publication.type
Local
رابط البحث
Not Available
المواد المرفقة
Not Available
الملخص
Background
Nasal packing is frequently used after nasal surgeries to control bleeding and prevent
adhesions. Many absorbable packing materials have been developed to avoid the drawbacks
of the traditional nonabsorbable ones and to help in wound healing.
Objective
This study was done to compare between absorbable and nonabsorbable nasal packings
regarding patient satisfaction and clinical outcome.
Patients and methods
A prospective, single‑blinded, randomized controlled clinical study was carried out in Benha
University Hospital from May 2018 to November 2019. A total of 40 patients (80 nostrils)
were enrolled in this study undergoing surgery. At the end of the procedure, the operative
cavity of each patient was randomly packed with Merocel, as a nonabsorbable material on
one side, and an absorbable material, which was sinufoam or gelfoam, on the other side.
Patients’ symptoms, including pain, nasal obstruction, and nasal discharge, were evaluated
with a visual analog scale. Objective findings about bleeding, crustations, adhesions, infection,
and mucosal edema were evaluated endoscopically. Each evaluation was done at third day,
2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after surgery.
Results
Absorbable packings had minimal pain, less nasal obstruction scores, and lower incidence of
discharge. Bleeding was significantly higher on absorbable side early postoperatively, especially
with Gelfoam. Crustation and adhesion scores were significantly higher on Merocel‑packed sides.
Gelfoam showed crustations and adhesions more than Sinufoam. Mucosal edema score was
significantly higher in Merocel group than the absorbable. However, there was no difference at 6 and
12 weeks. Gelfoam showed only significantly higher edema than Sinufoam at 6 weeks. There was a
significant difference between absorbable group and Merocel regarding infection at 1 and 2 weeks.
There was no difference between Gelfoam and Sinufoam regarding infection except at 6 weeks.
Conclusion
Absorbable packings are associated with less discomfort, more bleeding, and fewer
complications.
Nasal packing is frequently used after nasal surgeries to control bleeding and prevent
adhesions. Many absorbable packing materials have been developed to avoid the drawbacks
of the traditional nonabsorbable ones and to help in wound healing.
Objective
This study was done to compare between absorbable and nonabsorbable nasal packings
regarding patient satisfaction and clinical outcome.
Patients and methods
A prospective, single‑blinded, randomized controlled clinical study was carried out in Benha
University Hospital from May 2018 to November 2019. A total of 40 patients (80 nostrils)
were enrolled in this study undergoing surgery. At the end of the procedure, the operative
cavity of each patient was randomly packed with Merocel, as a nonabsorbable material on
one side, and an absorbable material, which was sinufoam or gelfoam, on the other side.
Patients’ symptoms, including pain, nasal obstruction, and nasal discharge, were evaluated
with a visual analog scale. Objective findings about bleeding, crustations, adhesions, infection,
and mucosal edema were evaluated endoscopically. Each evaluation was done at third day,
2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after surgery.
Results
Absorbable packings had minimal pain, less nasal obstruction scores, and lower incidence of
discharge. Bleeding was significantly higher on absorbable side early postoperatively, especially
with Gelfoam. Crustation and adhesion scores were significantly higher on Merocel‑packed sides.
Gelfoam showed crustations and adhesions more than Sinufoam. Mucosal edema score was
significantly higher in Merocel group than the absorbable. However, there was no difference at 6 and
12 weeks. Gelfoam showed only significantly higher edema than Sinufoam at 6 weeks. There was a
significant difference between absorbable group and Merocel regarding infection at 1 and 2 weeks.
There was no difference between Gelfoam and Sinufoam regarding infection except at 6 weeks.
Conclusion
Absorbable packings are associated with less discomfort, more bleeding, and fewer
complications.