A Prospective Study for Comparison of Anterior Nasal Packing with Rapid Rhino Packs and Merocel Packs after Septoplasty in Terms of Pain, Bleeding and Post-Operative Complications
Creators
- 1. Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Bhiwadi, Tijara, Alwar, Rajasthan, India
- 2. Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Maharaja Agrasen Medical College, Agroha, Hisar, Haryana, India
- 3. Associate Professor, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Maharaja Agrasen Medical College, Agroha, Hisar, Haryana, India
- 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Maharaja Agrasen Medical College, Agroha, Hisar, Haryana, India
- 5. Professor, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Maharaja Agrasen Medical College, Agroha, Hisar, Haryana, India
Description
Introduction: Nasal packs are used to stop bleeding after septoplasty. Wide ranges of packing materials are available, which primarily work by compression of vasculature. Rapid Rhino and Merocel are two types of commonly used nasal tampons. An inflatable cuff and carboxymethyl cellulose packing make up the Rapid Rhino pack when comes in contact with blood; it causes platelets to clump together. It stops active capillary and venous bleeding by compressing arterial bleeding and promoting clotting. Merocel nasal packing is a foam-like substance made of hydroxylated polyvinyl acetate. The pack material has cavities that can absorb liquid. The present study aimed to compare the Rapid Rhino and Merocel packs for nasal packing after septoplasty, in terms of pain, bleeding, patient tolerance (both with the pack in place and during removal), postoperative complications and endoscopic findings. Methodology: 50 patients with deviated nasal septum were randomly selected from patients scheduled for septoplasty. Right nasal cavity was packed with a Rapid Rhino pack and left with a Merocel pack at the conclusion of septoplasty. Follow-up examinations were done for observing pain, bleeding, comfort and to check for synechiae formation. Result: On removal of the pack, 14 (28%) of the patients in the Merocel group and 6 (12%) of the patients in the Rapid Rhino group developed bleeding. There was a statistically significant difference in the occurrence of pain and comfort in the two groups. Conclusions: Based on our findings, Rapid Rhino is better tolerated than Merocel by patients after septoplasty. Rapid Rhino has the advantage of removing the pack sooner and causing less reactionary bleeding.
Abstract (English)
Introduction: Nasal packs are used to stop bleeding after septoplasty. Wide ranges of packing materials are available, which primarily work by compression of vasculature. Rapid Rhino and Merocel are two types of commonly used nasal tampons. An inflatable cuff and carboxymethyl cellulose packing make up the Rapid Rhino pack when comes in contact with blood; it causes platelets to clump together. It stops active capillary and venous bleeding by compressing arterial bleeding and promoting clotting. Merocel nasal packing is a foam-like substance made of hydroxylated polyvinyl acetate. The pack material has cavities that can absorb liquid. The present study aimed to compare the Rapid Rhino and Merocel packs for nasal packing after septoplasty, in terms of pain, bleeding, patient tolerance (both with the pack in place and during removal), postoperative complications and endoscopic findings. Methodology: 50 patients with deviated nasal septum were randomly selected from patients scheduled for septoplasty. Right nasal cavity was packed with a Rapid Rhino pack and left with a Merocel pack at the conclusion of septoplasty. Follow-up examinations were done for observing pain, bleeding, comfort and to check for synechiae formation. Result: On removal of the pack, 14 (28%) of the patients in the Merocel group and 6 (12%) of the patients in the Rapid Rhino group developed bleeding. There was a statistically significant difference in the occurrence of pain and comfort in the two groups. Conclusions: Based on our findings, Rapid Rhino is better tolerated than Merocel by patients after septoplasty. Rapid Rhino has the advantage of removing the pack sooner and causing less reactionary bleeding.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue10,Article34.pdf
Files
(226.9 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:c855321a171597a8e1a89537e8de58bb
|
226.9 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-09-30
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue10,Article34.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. D'Ascanio L, Manzini M. Quick septoplasty: surgical technique and learning curve. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2009 Nov; 33(6):814-8. 2. Jin HR, Kim DW, Jung HJ. Common sites, etiology, and solutions of persistent septal deviation in revision septoplasty. Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology. 2018 Dec; 11(4):288-92. 3. Bloom JD, Kaplan SE, Bleier BS, Goldstein SA. Septoplasty Complications: Avoidance and Management. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2009;42(3):463–81. 4. Hajiioannou JK, Bizaki A, Fragiadakis G, Bourolias C, Spanakis I, Chlouverakis G, et al. Optimal time for nasal packing removal after septoplasty. A comparative study. Rhinology. 2007;45(1):68–71. 5. Sugarman PM, Alderson DJ. Training model for nasal packing. Journal of Accident and Emergency Medicine. 1995 Dec 1; 12:276-8. 6. Naik SM, Appaji M, Ravishankar S, Goutham MK, Annapurna SM, Pinky Devi N, Naik SS. Anterior nasal packing in nasal surgeries and epistaxis: advantages of nasal tampon over conventional framycetin ribbon packs. Online Journal of Otolaryngology. 2014 Mar 1;4. 7. Hesham A, Ghali A. Rapid Rhino versus Merocel nasal packs in septal surgery. The Journal of Laryngology & Otology. 2011 Dec; 125(12):1244-6. 8. Dag I, Acar M, Sakallioglu O, Catli T, San T, Cingi C. Influence of surface properties of Merocel®(polyvinyl acetal) and silicone nasal splints on biofilm formation. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2014 Jun; 271(6):1519-24.9. Deniz M, Çiftçi Z, Işık A, Demirel OB, Gültekin E. The impact of different nasal packings on postoperative complications. American journal of otolaryngology. 2014 Sep 1; 35(5):554-7. 10. Akbari E, Philpott CM, Ostry AJ, Clark A, Javer AR. A double-blind randomised controlled trial of gloved versus ungloved Merocel middle meatal spacers for endoscopic sinus surgery. Rhinology. 2012 Sep 1; 50(3):306-10. 11. Kaur J, Singh M, Kaur I, Singh A, Goyal S. A comparative study of gloved versus ungloved Merocel® as nasal pack after septoplasty. Nigerian journal of clinical practice. 2018; 21(11):1391-5. 12. 12. Thomas I, Thekkethil JS, Kapoor RC, Thomas T, Thomas P. A Novel Technique of Using Sponge as Post-Operative Nasal Packing. Bengal Journal of Otolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery. 2018 Apr 28; 26(1):23-8. 13. Dubin MR, Pletcher SD. Postoperative packing after septoplasty: is it necessary?. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America. 2009 Apr 1; 42(2):279-85. 14. Al-Arfaj A, Al-Swiahb JN, Al-Harthy S, AlEssa M. Nasal packing in cosmetic and functional nasal surgery. Saudi Med J. 2008 Jul 1; 29(7):994-7. 15. Sahin C, Aras HI. The effect of nasal packing removal on patients anxiety. Medical Archives. 2015 Dec; 69(6):393. 16. Romano A, Salzano G, Dell'Aversana Orabona G, Cama A, Petrocelli M, Piombino P, Califano L. Comparative study between biodegradable nasopore (BNP) and Merocel hemox 10 cm after septo-turbinoplasty procedure. European review for medical and pharmacological sciences. 2017 Feb 1; 21(4):669-73. 17. Arslan F, Arslan TK. The effect of Merocel nasal packing use on cognitive functions. ENT Updates. 2019; 10(1):265-70. 18. Thomas I, Thekkethil JS, Kapoor RC, Thomas T, Thomas P. A Novel Technique of Using Sponge as Post-Operative Nasal Packing. Bengal Journal of Otolaryngology and Head Neck Surgery. 2018 Apr 28; 26(1):23-8. 19. Koç AE, Babakurban ST, Kibar SS, Büyüklü F. A comparative study on nasal packing after septoplasty: does it matter in terms of patient comfort, bleeding, and crust or synechia formation. Kulak BurunBogazIhtisDerg. 2016; 26(3):152-8. 20. Raghunandhan S, Kameswaran M, Thomas JK. A prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study comparing the efficacy of a novel biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam (Nasopore) vs standard polyvinyl acetate sponge (Merocel) as packing material after functional endoscopic sinus surgery: T. Clin Rhinol. 2014;7(3):105–11. 21. Moumoulidis I, Draper MR, Patel H, Jani P, Price T. A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing Merocel and Rapid Rhino nasal tampons in the treatment of epistaxis. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Head & Neck. 2006 Aug; 263(8):719-22. 22. Özcan C, Vayısoglu Y, Kılıç S, Görür K. Comparison of Rapid Rhino and Merocel nasal packs in endonasal septal surgery. Journal of Otolaryngology--Head & Neck Surgery. 2008 Dec 1; 37(6). 23. Arya AK, Butt O, Nigam A. Double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing Merocel with Rapid Rhino nasal packs after routine nasal surgery. Rhinology, 2003 Dec;41(4):241- 3. PMID: 14750352. 24. Cruise AS, Amonoo‐Kuofi K, Srouji I, Kanagalingam J, Georgalas C, Patel NN, Badia L, Lund VJ. A randomized trial of Rapid Rhino Riemann and Telfa nasal packs following endoscopic sinus surgery. Clinical otolaryngology. 2006 Feb; 31(1):25-32. 25. Badran K, Malik TH, Belloso A, Timms MS. Randomized controlled trial comparing Merocel® and RapidRhino® packing in the management of anterior epistaxis. Clinical Otolaryngology. 2005 Aug; 30(4):333-7. 26. Joshi RR, Nepal A, Chhetri ST, Bhandary S, Panta TB, Regmi D. An evaluation of Merocel and neosporin impregnated ribbon gauze packs in patients following nasal surgery: a prospective randomised trial. Health Renaissance. 2012; 10(1):30-4. 27. Swaroop DM, Narayanaswamy GN, Mehrin S, Anu PK, Vandana M. A study of the complications of ribbon gauze impregnated with soframycin nasal packing and Merocel packing in post septoplasty patients. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2015 Mar 19; 4(23):3966-72. 28. Resuli AS, Oktem F, Ataus S. The role of the depressor nasi septi muscle in nasal air flow. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2020 Oct; 44(5):1766-75.