Literature DB >> 16441798

A randomized trial of Rapid Rhino Riemann and Telfa nasal packs following endoscopic sinus surgery.

A S Cruise1, K Amonoo-Kuofi, I Srouji, J Kanagalingam, C Georgalas, N N Patel, L Badia, V J Lund.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare Telfa with the Rapid Rhino Riemann nasal pack for use following endoscopic sinus surgery.
DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, paired trial.
SETTING: Tertiary otolaryngology hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-five adult patients undergoing bilateral endoscopic sinus surgery for either chronic rhinosinusitis or nasal polyps. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A visual analogue scale was used to assess discomfort caused by the presence of the packs in the nose and by their removal. The amount of bleeding was noted with the packs in place and following their removal. Crusting and adhesions were assessed 2 and 6 weeks following surgery.
RESULTS: Both packs performed well giving good haemostasis and causing little bleeding on removal. Both packs caused only mild discomfort while in the nose. On the visual analogue scale of 0-10 cm the mean visual analogue score for Rapid Rhino Riemann pack was 1.7 and for Telfa 2.0 (P = 0.371). The Rapid Rhino Riemann pack caused significantly less pain on removal compared with the Telfa pack with a mean visual analogue score of 2.0 in comparison with 3.7 for Telfa (P = 0.001). There were less adhesions with the Rapid Rhino Riemann than Telfa pack but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.102).
CONCLUSIONS: Both Telfa and Rapid Rhino Riemann packs can be recommended as packs that control postoperative haemorrhage, do not cause bleeding on removal and cause little discomfort while in the nose. The Rapid Rhino Riemann pack has the advantage of causing significantly less pain on removal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16441798     DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01122.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1749-4478            Impact factor:   2.597


  8 in total

1.  Nasal septal packing: which one?

Authors:  Engin Acıoğlu; Deniz Tuna Edizer; Özgür Yiğit; Fırat Onur; Zeynep Alkan
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-12-09       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  A survey of postoperative nasal packing among UK ENT surgeons.

Authors:  Costa Repanos; Stephen E McDonald; Amir H Sadr
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-04-17       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  A new modification of Doyle splint (Hemi-split Doyle) in rhinoplasty with alar base reduction.

Authors:  İlker Koçak; E Şentürk
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Use of CMC foam sinus dressing in FESS.

Authors:  Kornel Szczygielski; Piotr Rapiejko; Andrzej Wojdas; Dariusz Jurkiewicz
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-10-24       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Endoscopic outcomes of resorbable nasal packing after functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a multicenter prospective randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Marco Berlucchi; Paolo Castelnuovo; Andrea Vincenzi; Bruno Morra; Ernesto Pasquini
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Nasal packing and stenting.

Authors:  Rainer K Weber
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2011-03-10

Review 7.  Biodegradable nasal packings for endoscopic sinonasal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Maoxiao Yan; Dandan Zheng; Ying Li; Qiaoli Zheng; Jia Chen; Beibei Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-19       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A Comparative Double Blind Study of Nasal Dressing Sponge® versus Merocel® as Nasal Pack after Nasal Surgery.

Authors:  Lorusso Francesco; Dispenza Francesco; Sireci Federico; Modica-Domenico Michele; Gallina Salvatore
Journal:  Iran J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-11
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.