Double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing Merocel with Rapid Rhino nasal packs after routine nasal surgery

INTRODUCTION: Nasal packing after routine nasal surgery is commonly practiced in the UK. The most popular pack appears to be Merocel, however this can be associated with significant pain on its removal. AIM: To test the efficacy of a relatively new nasal pack--the Rapid Rhino Goodman pack--introduced to our department, which claims to reduce pain and bleeding after nasal surgery. METHODS: Fourteen patients undergoing routine nasal surgery were recruited into a randomised controlled trial. One nasal cavity was packed with a Merocel pack and the other with a Rapid Rhino Goodman pack. Patients were asked to record pain levels on each side using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: We found no difference between packs whilst in-situ, with all patients recording low to moderate pain scores. There were significantly higher pain levels associated with Merocel pack removal than with Rapid Rhino pack removal (average pain scores 5.64 vs 1.64, p < 0.001) and less bleeding overall. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid Rhino (Goodman pack) is associated with significantly less pain on removal than Merocel pack, causes less bleeding and is not more painful whilst in-situ. We therefore recommend its use in routine nasal surgery.     

Foam nasal packs: a prospective, randomised, patient-controlled study

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of Spiggle and Merocel foam packs following routine nasal surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomised, single-blind, paired study. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty adult patients undergoing elective nasal surgery. INTERVENTION: At the end of nasal surgery patients were randomised to have a Spiggle pack inserted in one nasal cavity and a Merocel pack in the other. Packs were removed the following morning. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was pain due to the presence of packs in the nose and pain associated with their removal. This was measured using a visual analogue scale. Secondary outcome measures were bleeding, crusting and adhesion formation. RESULTS: Both packs were effective at preventing postoperative haemorrhage. Bleeding following removal was minimal. There were no significant differences between the packs in terms of levels of discomfort experienced 6 hours after surgery or the following morning prior to removal (p = 0.3 and p = 0.3 respectively). However, the Spiggle foam pack caused significantly less pain on removal compared with the Merocel foam pack (mean difference 1.4; 95% CI 0.4 to 2.4, p = 0.005). There were no significant differences in terms of crust and adhesion formation. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, both the Spiggle and Merocel foam nasal packs were well tolerated while in the nose. Both provided good postoperative haemostasis and were not associated with bleeding on removal. The Spiggle foam pack had the advantage of causing significantly less pain on removal. However, it must be borne in mind that in this study the Spiggle pack was more likely to be positioned in the non-incised nasal cavity, the side that would generally be expected to be associated with less pain.     

An evaluation of Merocel and Series 5000 nasal packs in patients following nasal surgery: a prospective randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare postoperative pain levels between Merocel and Series 5000 nasal packs. DESIGN: A prospective randomised, single blind, paired control trial. SETTING: A single consultant in two tertiary Otolaryngology units. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four adults, ASA 1, who underwent septoplasty, endoscopic sinus surgery or both, were considered after exclusion criteria were applied: bleeding abnormalities, patients taking anticoagulant medications and any significant co-morbidity requiring admission beyond 24-h postoperatively. Twenty-one patients were randomly assigned to have one side of their nose packed with Merocel pack and the other with Series 5000 overnight. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The difference in pain levels, using a visual analogue scale, both with the pack in situ and on removal. RESULTS: In 20 patients, the mean pain scores while the packs were in situ were 3.78 for Merocel and 3.62 for Series 5000 and was not found to be significantly different (P = 0.65. 95% CI = -0.57-0.89). The mean pain score on removal of the Merocel pack was five and for the Series 5000 was 3.08. The Series 5000 pack was significantly less painful than Merocel on removal (P < 0.0001. 95% CI = 1.11-2.7). Both were equally effective in their stability and haemostatic effect. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Merocel and Series 5000 packs are effective packs regarding haemostasis and have equivalent pain levels while in situ. However, the Series 5000 pack was significantly less painful on removal of the pack.     

Randomized controlled trial comparing Merocel® and RapidRhino® packing in the management of anterior epistaxis*

Objectives: A prospective non‐blinded randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy of Merocel^® and RapidRhino^® nasal packs in the treatment of anterior epistaxis. Methods: Fifty‐two consecutive participants admitted with anterior epistaxis refractory to digital pressure or nasal cautery were randomized to treatment using one or other of the nasal packs. Patients who required repacking because of continued bleeding, only the first packs were included in the analysis. Haemostatic properties of the packs were measured by grading bleeding during and after removal of the pack (0–4, where four is uncontrollable) and by noting if the nose was re‐packed or not. The difficulty of insertion and removal (graded 0–3 by clinician where 3 is the most difficult) and the participant's perception of discomfort (graded 0–10, where 10 is the worst pain) during insertion and removal of the pack were also measured. Results: For bleeding, the mean values for Merocel^® and RapidRhino^® during packing and after pack removal were not significant (P = 0.38 and 0.82 respectively). The mean values of patient discomfort on insertion were 6.9 and 5.0 (P = 0.01), and for discomfort on removal were 4.6 and 3.4 (P = 0.05) respectively. The mean values of insertion graded by the clinician were 1.7 and 0.9 (P = 0.0003), and for removal were 1.4 and 0.4 (P < 0.0001). Conclusions: RapidRhino^® and Merocel^® are equally effective in the control of anterior epistaxis but RapidRhino^® is significantly more comfortable for the patient and easier for the healthcare worker during insertion and removal.     

鼻内镜手术后鼻腔填塞物的选择及效果比较

目的 前瞻性比较四种鼻腔填塞材料的疗效,指导临床选择合适的术后鼻内填塞物。方法 选择凡士林纱条、Merocel、瑞纳及硅胶管4组,采用视觉模拟评分法(visual analogue scale,VAS)评分和记录填塞期及抽取时病人的舒适程度、控制鼻出血的有效性和抽取填塞物的难易程度并进行比较。结果瑞纳组病人填塞期不适程度最小,与其他三组比较均有显著差异(P<0.01),抽取时的不适感也较小于凡士林纱条组以及硅胶管组(P<0.05);凡士林纱条术后当天渗血量少于其他组(P<0.05);瑞纳组抽取比较容易,相对凡士林纱条组以及硅胶管组有显著差异(P<0.0 1);抽取时凡士林纱条组渗血最多。结论鼻内镜手术时,应综合考虑手术范围、操作难易度、控制出血、减轻疼痛、有利愈合、确保效果等诸方面因素合理选用术后填塞物。瑞纳优势较为全面,可作为鼻内镜手术的常规填塞材料。     

A study to determine the benefits of bilateral versus unilateral nasal packing with Rapid Rhino® packs

There is little evidence to suggest that bilateral nasal packing increases intra-nasal pressures compared to a single pack (or is well tolerated) for uncontrolled unilateral epistaxis, but it is often performed and justified on those grounds. 15 volunteers were recruited according to strict criteria. Rapid Rhino^® 5.5 cm anterior packs were inserted bilaterally following topical nasal preparation with co-phenylcaine. The first pack was inflated to a pre-determined pressure. The contralateral pack was inflated to match, and any intra-nasal pressure change on the first side was measured. The subject’s level of discomfort was scored on a visual analogue scale. This procedure was repeated at incremental pressures. Higher ipsilateral intra-nasal pressures are achieved when additional contralateral nasal packs are inflated. This change in ipsilateral intra-nasal pressure is greater at higher total inflation pressures. At higher pressures, the subjects reported lower mean pain scores when bilateral packs were used compared to unilateral. This effect was only statistically significant at intra-nasal pressures of 140 mmHg and above (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test, p < 0.02). It is possible to increase the ipsilateral nasal cavity pressure by inserting a contralateral nasal pack. Although this extra pressure may be enough to tamponade further venous bleeding without significantly increasing a subject’s discomfort, the high levels of pack pressure required, make this unlikely to be of significant use in the clinical setting.     

Rhino凝胶止血材料用于鼻腔填塞的临床观察

目的：探讨Rhino凝胶止血材料在鼻腔、鼻窦术后及严重鼻出血的临床应用价值。方法：对传统的凡士林纱条和新型的凝胶止血材料进行鼻腔填塞的2组病例的临床资料进行回顾性分析，并对2种填塞方法在填塞期和抽取时患者的鼻腔疼痛和（或）头痛，控制出血的有效性和抽取填塞物的难易程度进行比较。结果：Rhino组在填塞期和抽取时患者鼻腔疼痛和（或）头痛比凡士林组轻（P〈0．01和P〈0．05）。填塞期24h出血量差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05），但在抽取时出血量差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01），抽取填塞物时，Rhino组比凡士林纱条组容易（P〈0．01）。结论：Rhino具有药物止血和压迫止血双重功能，是一种理想的鼻腔填塞物。     

Lignocaine as a topical analgesia for post-operative nasal pack removal: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of topical lignocaine in reducing the pain of pack removal after nasal surgery. Fifty-eight patients with Merocel nasal packs in situ after nasal surgery were randomized to receive 10 ml of either 2 per cent lignocaine or 0.9 per cent saline on the packs 10 minutes prior to their removal and the pain experienced on their removal was recorded on a visual analogue scale. The median pain score was 3.4 in the lignocaine group and 2.9 in the saline group with no statistical evidence of a difference between the two groups. There was no statistical evidence of an association between the group and the operation performed, the use of intra-operative Moffat's solution or the use of post-operative oral analgesia. We conclude that lignocaine used in this way does not reduce the pain of pack removal after nasal surgery.     

An evaluation of post-operative packing in nasal septal surgery

The need for nasal packing in septal surgery is not proven though its use is widespread. Post-operative complications, while uncommon, are frequently pack related. Consenting adults were prospectively randomized to one of the following: Vaseline gauze nasal packing or 30 Dexon mucosal suture. All patients were operated on by one surgeon who was made aware of the randomization decision only when the corrective surgery was complete. Details of post-operative morbidity were collected and pain scored subjectively by a visual analogue scale the morning after surgery. The first 50 available pain scales illustrated a difference between the groups (P < 0.05), means 4 and 3 in the pack and suture group respectively. There was no demonstrable difference in post-operative haemorrhage, adhesions, nasal crusting or mucosal atrophy. The need for nasal packing is not supported.     

The relationship between pressure and volume when using Rapid Rhino(r) packs in the management of epistaxis

Despite the popularity of Rapid Rhino packs, there are no clear guidelines regarding the volume of air to be inflated when used in the management of epistaxis. The manufacturers suggest that subjective assessment by pilot cuff palpation is used to guide inflation. However, studies have clearly demonstrated that clinicians are poor at judging balloon pressure by pilot cuff palpation when used in other settings. Our objective was to investigate the relationship between the volume of air inflated and the resultant intra-nasal pressure generated by nasal balloon packing. Twelve healthy subjects were packed with 5.5 cm Rapid Rhino packs, which were connected to a manometer and 20 ml syringe via a 3-way tap in a closed circuit. Increments of 2.5 mls of air were inflated and the resultant intra-nasal pack pressure was measured. There appeared to be a linear relationship between increasing volume and pack pressure. However, between individuals, there was a large variation in the intra-nasal pack pressure produced for a given fixed volume of air inflated. This is presumably due to variations in nasal anatomy. It may be that a manometer-measured, pressure guided nasal pack inflation technique would represent best practice, especially for less experienced staff.     

Swallowed nasal pack: a rare but serious complication of the management of epistaxis

Packing of the nose with a suitable material remains a popular method of treating epistaxis. The authors report a serious complication of a new design of nasal pack; Rapid Rhino, which was swallowed during the treatment of a patient with epistaxis, resulting in bowel perforation.     

The use of topical 5% lignocaine ointment for the relief of pain associated with post-operative nasal packing

Packing of the nasal cavity remains a common routine precautionary measure following septal surgery. The nasal pack and its removal 24 h later are often cited by patients as the most painful aspects of septal surgery. We present the results of a randomized, prospective controlled trial of the use of topical 5% lignocaine ointment as a method of pain relief following post-operative nasal packing. Post-operative pain as measured using a visual analogue scale at 3 h post-operatively was halved in patients receiving a lignocaine impregnated nasal pack compared with those having a standard vaseline gauze pack (P < 0.05). Pain scores at 6 h post-operatively and at pack removal were also reduced, but these failed to reach significance. No patients suffered reactionary haemorrhage. The use of topical lignocaine ointment is safe and may have a place in the relief of pain due to post-operative nasal packing.     

Effects of nonabsorbable packing in middle meatus after sinus surgery

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a nonabsorbable packing (NAP) in the middle meatus (MM) for 5 days after sinus surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, partly blinded, controlled clinical trial. METHODS: Sixty-one patients (M/F = 30/31, mean age 42, range 18-72) with chronic or acute recurrent rhinosinusitis were included. Fifty-nine underwent surgery. Thirty-one had NAP in the MM for 5 days, and 28 served as controls with daily saline irrigations postoperatively. Primary outcome variables were nasal congestion, nasal pain, and headache the first 2 weeks rated on visual analogue scales (VAS; 0-100) and the amount of postoperative bleeding recorded on an ordinal scale (1-4). Secondary outcome variable was the extent of adhesions in MM 10 to 14 weeks after surgery judged by blinded evaluation of endoscopic video recordings. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients completed a diary. No significant differences in primary outcome variables between the groups were found. Nasal congestion decreased most the first 5 to 7 days postoperatively. Removal of the NAP caused little pain (mean 23 on VAS). Temporary bleeding occurred in three patients. Bilateral adhesions were observed in 10 control patients but in none with NAP. Unilateral adhesions were found in nine control patients and in seven with NAP (exact P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: NAP in the MM for 5 days significantly reduced the extent of adhesions in MM compared with saline irrigation alone. NAP did not cause additional discomfort.     

Nasal splints, revisited

A study was carried out to compare the effectiveness of nasal splints (in preventing intranasal adhesions) with the morbidity associated with their use in nasal surgery. One hundred and ten patients undergoing a routine nasal operation were randomly allocated into two equal groups, one with splints and the other without. Post-operative pain and discomfort was assessed by a visual analogue scale at 48 hours and a week following surgery when either nasal suction (non-splinted group) or removal of splints was carried out. All patients were examined after six weeks for development of adhesions. Results showed that there was no significant difference in the incidence of adhesions between the splinted and non-splinted patient groups. However, the patients with splints had significantly more pain and nasal discomfort when assessed one week after surgery. It is concluded that the morbidity associated with nasal splints does not justify their use in routine nasal surgery if the aim is to prevent nasal adhesions, but they may still be indicated for enhancing the stability of the septum following septoplasty.     

A prospective trial of Merocel packs.

A prospective trial, comparing Merocel nasal packs and glove finger packs is reported. No statistically significant difference was found in symptoms of nasal obstruction or discomfort, findings of nasal crusting or adhesions, or postoperative bleeding, between nostrils packed with Merocel packs or those packed with glove fingers.     

Day-case endoscopic sinus surgery using dissolvable haemostatic nasal packs: a pilot study

In a prospective pilot study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of dissolvable nasal packs (Sinu-knit) for control of post-operative bleeding in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), as well as potential complications of this novel packing material and patients’ satisfaction with the dissolvable nasal packs. The patients included were considered suitable for a day-case procedure. We excluded subjects under 16-year-old, as well as patients on warfarin or with any coexisting medical or social reasons rendering them unsuitable for a day-case procedure. The main outcome measures were: readmission rate, postoperative bleeding rate, any other postoperative complications and patient satisfaction survey (including management as a day case and views about the packs). Fifteen patients fulfilled our criteria and were enrolled in this study (between March and August 2005). Fourteen patients were able to go home on the same day. One patient stayed overnight because of vomiting. All operations were performed by the same surgeon and the same anaesthetist. There were no readmissions due to postoperative bleeding. All patients were followed up with rigid video-nasendoscopy weekly for three weeks with further reviews at 6 weeks, 3 months and a final follow-up 6 months postoperatively. No postoperative adhesions were seen on nasendoscopy up to 6 months postoperatively. Dissolvable packs appear to be safe and effective and can be used for day case sinus surgery. There is no need for packing removal, thus greater patients’ satisfaction.     

An absorbent,non-adherent nasal pack

A modification of an absorbent, non-adherent material (Telfa) is described for use as an anterior nasal packing. The ideal nasal packing should fulfill certain criteria. It should be easy to introduce and remove, contour to the nasal cavity to exert a tamponade effect, and should not prolapse or react unfavorably with the mucous membranes of the nose. The advantages of Telfa as a nasal packing is discussed and compared to previously described materials in this regard. During the past three years this pack has been used in over 800 patients for anterior epistaxis, septal and rhinoplastic surgery. The results have been extremely satisfactory, and the authors suggest their use in these cases.     

Is packing of the nose up-to-date ?

BACKGROUND: Generally accepted standards regarding the materials which should be used for packing, how long the packing should be left in place or the indications for nasal packing are lacking. Nasal packing is used primarily to control bleeding in endonasal surgery, to stabilize the cartilaginous and bony skeleton and to prevent synechiae or restenosis. For the latter some authors recommend to pack the nose for several days. We want to prove the acceptance according to time, particularly wether there is an increase in discomfort. PATIENTS: Prospective study in 60 patients who underwent septoplasty and submucosal resection of inferior turbinates (n = 30) or endonasal sinus surgery (n = 30, in 15 cases septoplasty was performed too). The nose was packed for 4 or 5 days. Using a visual analog scale (0 - 10) the patient's condition was examined regarding: stuffy nose, headache, sleeping disorders, overall judgement. RESULTS: In two patients the packing had to be removed early (once because of the development of swelling of the lower lid and cheek; once because of lacking acceptance). The average condition of the remaining 58 patients showed no worsening during time for all 4 features. Analyzing the individual, only two patients (3.5 %) showed continuous increasing of complaints. CONCLUSIONS: According to this investigation, nasal packing for 4 or 5 days is well accepted by most of the patients, if you be able to make clear its sense to the patient. Nevertheless, looking for alternative operative techniques or nasal packing materials is mandatory to improve the patient's comfort postoperatively.     

Effectiveness of hemostatic gelatin sponge as a packing material after septoplasty: A prospective,randomized, multicenter study

Objective

Although hemostatic gelatin sponge is a gelatin-based packing material with a powerful hemostatic effect, there were no studies in regard to its efficacy for packing material after septoplasty. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of hemostatic gelatin sponge nasal packing on patient’s subjective symptoms, hemostasis, and wound healing following septoplasty.

A randomized study to compare calcium sodium alginate fibre with two commonly used materials for packing after nasal surgery

A prospective randomized study was undertaken to compare the qualities of calcium sodium alginate (Kaltostat), trousered paraffin gauze, and glove finger packs as nasal packing material following the operation of partial inferior turbinectomy. All three types of packing material were found to be similarly effective in preventing bleeding whilst the packs were in situ. Calcium sodium alginate (Kaltostat) was associated with significantly less bleeding on pack removal than the other two packing materials. Further, irrespective of the material used, leaving the packs in situ for 48 hours produced significantly less bleeding than when they were removed after 24 hours.