Clinical Rhinology

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2024 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Outcomes of Hydroxylated Polyvinyl Acetate and Medicated Ribbon Gauze Pack in Patients Undergoing Nasal Surgery: An Observational Study

Sarathkumar Boobalan, Vinoth Manimaran, Somu Lakshmanan, Pradeep Dhanapal

Keywords : Hydroxylated polyvinyl acetate, Nasal packing, Nasal surgery, Ribbon gauze, Synechiae

Citation Information : Boobalan S, Manimaran V, Lakshmanan S, Dhanapal P. Outcomes of Hydroxylated Polyvinyl Acetate and Medicated Ribbon Gauze Pack in Patients Undergoing Nasal Surgery: An Observational Study. Clin Rhinol An Int J 2024; 15 (1):1-4.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10013-1395

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 16-11-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Nasal packs have been routinely used after nasal surgeries to prevent postoperative bleeding and synechiae formation. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the outcomes of hydroxylated polyvinyl acetate (PVA) and medicated ribbon gauze packs after performing nasal surgeries. A prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital of South India from 2017 to 2019. A total of 100 patients satisfying the study criteria were included and divided equally into two groups. Group A underwent PVA packs and group B underwent medicated ribbon gauze packs. Visual analog scale for pain (0–3), hemostasis score (0–5) and postoperative mucosal scores were measured. The mean VAS scores in the postoperative period were 1.46 ± 0.3 and 1.92 ± 0.4 (p = 0.000), respectively. After pack removal, mean VAS scores were 1.84 ± 0.4 and 2.4 ± 0.6, respectively (p = 0.000). The mean hemostasis scores of PVA and ribbon gauze group were 2.2 ± 0.95 and 1.64 ± 0.8, respectively (p = 0.119). The postoperative mucosal scores were 2.75 ± 0.6 and 2.9 ± 0.7 on day 14 (p = 0.35) and 1.2 ± 0.4 and 1.9 ± 0.7 on day 28, respectively (p = 0.001). We conclude that PVA packs caused lesser pain and had better postoperative healing when compared with ribbon gauze. Though ribbon gauze packs had better hemostasis control, the difference was not statistically significant.


PDF Share
  1. Stewart MG, Smith TL, Weaver EM, et al. Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: Results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130(3):283–290. DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2003.12.004.
  2. Naghibzadeh B, Peyvandi AA, Naghibzadeh G. Does post septoplasty nasal packing reduce complications? Acta Med Iran 2011;40(1):9–12. PMID: 21425063.
  3. Von Schoenberg M, Robinson P, Ryan R. Nasal packing after routine nasal surgery—is it justified? J Laryngol Otol 1993;107(10):902–905. PMID: 8263386.
  4. Garth RJ, Brightwell AP. A comparison of packing materials used in nasal surgery. J Laryngol Otol 1994;108(7):564–566. DOI: 10.1017/s0022215100127434.
  5. Ozcan C, Vayisoglu Y, Kiliç S, et al. Comparison of rapid rhino and merocel nasal packs in endonasal septal surgery. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;37(6):826–831. PMID: 19128711.
  6. Badran K, Malik TH, Belloso A, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing Merocel® and RapidRhino® packing in the management of anterior epistaxis. Clin Otolaryngol 2005;30(4):333–337. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2273.2005.01019.x.
  7. Shukla RH, Nemade SV, Shinde KJ. Comparison of visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) score in evaluation of post septoplasty patients. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020;6(1):53–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2019.06.002.
  8. Lund VJ, Kennedy DW. Quantification for staging sinusitis. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology 1995;104(10_suppl):17–21.
  9. Wang J, Cai C, Wang S. Merocel versus Nasopore for nasal packing: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2014;9(4):e93959. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093959.
  10. Orlandi RR, Lanza DC. Is nasal packing necessary following endoscopic sinus surgery? Laryngoscope 2004;114(9):1541–1544. DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200409000-00007.
  11. Bresnihan M, Mehigan B, Curran A. An evaluation of Merocel and Series 5000 nasal packs in patients following nasal surgery: A prospective randomised trial. Clin Otolaryngol 2007;32(5):352–355. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2007.01517.x.
  12. Udaipurwala IH, Ahmed S, Hussain J. Comparison of finger glove and ribbon gauze nasal packing after septal surgery. BUMDC 2016;6(3):156–159. Available from: https://applications.emro.who.int/imemrf/J_Bahria_Univ_Med_Dent_Coll/J_Bahria_Univ_Med_Dent_Coll_2016_6_3_156_159.pdf.
  13. Titiz A, Zeyrek T, Ozcan M, et al. The effects of merocel and glove finger tampon applications on the nasal septum mucosa of rabbits. Rhinology 2008;46(2):112–115. PMID: 18575011.
  14. Mohan A, Ravishankar S, Gautham M, et al. Anterior nasal packing in nasal surgeries and epistaxis: advantages of nasal tampon over conventional framycetin ribbon packs. Online Journal of Otolaryngology 2014;4(1):2.
  15. Weber R, Hochapfel F, Draf W. Packing and stents in endonasal surgery. Rhinology 2000;38(2):49–62. PMID: 10953841.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.