Literature DB >> 25186452

Comparative analysis of Cutanplast and Spongostan nasal packing after endoscopic sinus surgery: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study.

Kyu-Sup Cho1, Chan-Hwi Park, Sung-Lyong Hong, Min-Jung Kim, Joo-Yeon Kim, Yong-Wan Kim, Soo-Kweon Koo, Hwan-Jung Roh.   

Abstract

Commercial gelatin-based packing materials are available under different names and compositions to be used after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of Spongostan and Cutanplast nasal packing on patients' subjective symptoms, hemostasis, and wound healing following ESS. One hundred adult patients with chronic sinusitis requiring the same extent of ESS were included. Following surgery, one nasal cavity was packed with Cutanplast and the other one with Spongostan. Patients' subjective symptoms while the packing was in situ, hemostatic properties, degree of remaining amount of packing materials, postoperative wound healing, and the cost of the pack were evaluated. Cutanplast and Spongostan are equally effective in the control of postoperative bleeding following ESS. However, Cutanplast packing was significantly more comfortable than Spongostan for nasal obstruction, postnasal drip, rhinorrhea, and headache. Furthermore, the Cutanplast packing was significantly less painful at all time points. The remaining amount of the pack was significantly lower in the Cutanplast than Spongostan packing. Spongostan packing appears to impair wound healing within the sinus cavities up to 3 months postoperatively. Cutanplast was less expensive than Spongostan as used in this study. Cutanplast may be more useful gelatin-based packing material than Spongostan in terms of efficacy and cost-benefit after ESS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25186452     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-014-3264-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  21 in total

Review 1.  Packing in endonasal surgery.

Authors:  R Weber; R Keerl; F Hochapfel; W Draf; P H Toffel
Journal:  Am J Otolaryngol       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.808

2.  Comparison between Gelfoam packing and no packing after endoscopic sinus surgery in the same patients.

Authors:  Jee Hye Wee; Chul Hee Lee; Chae Seo Rhee; Jeong-Whun Kim
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Rhinosinusitis: developing guidance for clinical trials.

Authors:  Eli O Meltzer; Daniel L Hamilos; James A Hadley; Donald C Lanza; Bradley F Marple; Richard A Nicklas; Allen D Adinoff; Claus Bachert; Larry Borish; Vernon M Chinchilli; Melvyn R Danzig; Berrylin J Ferguson; Wytske J Fokkens; Stephen G Jenkins; Valerie J Lund; Mahmood F Mafee; Robert M Naclerio; Ruby Pawankar; Jens U Ponikau; Mark S Schubert; Raymond G Slavin; Michael G Stewart; Alkis Togias; Ellen R Wald; Birgit Winther
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 10.793

4.  Packing in endoscopic sinus surgery: is it really required?

Authors:  Ron Eliashar; Menachem Gross; Jay Wohlgelernter; Jean-Yves Sichel
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.497

Review 5.  Advances in absorbable biomaterials and nasal packing.

Authors:  Rowan Valentine; Peter-John Wormald; Raj Sindwani
Journal:  Otolaryngol Clin North Am       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.346

6.  Is nasal packing necessary following endoscopic sinus surgery?

Authors:  Richard R Orlandi; Donald C Lanza
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  Impact of perioperative systemic steroids on surgical outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis: evaluation with the novel Perioperative Sinus Endoscopy (POSE) scoring system.

Authors:  Erin D Wright; Sumit Agrawal
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 8.  Advantages and disadvantages of topical packing in endoscopic sinus surgery.

Authors:  Rakesh K Chandra; Robert C Kern
Journal:  Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.064

9.  Comparison of rapid rhino and merocel nasal packs in endonasal septal surgery.

Authors:  Cengiz Ozcan; Yusuf Vayisoglu; Serkan Kiliç; Kemal Görür
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2008-12

10.  Nasal packing after routine nasal surgery--is it justified?

Authors:  M von Schoenberg; P Robinson; R Ryan
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 1.469

View more
  3 in total

1.  Safety and Efficacy of Trocar Port-Site Closure Using a Biological Plug Closure in Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: a Prospective Study.

Authors:  Youssef Andraos
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2022-09-07       Impact factor: 3.479

2.  Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) for the promotion of bone cell proliferation and tissue regeneration.

Authors:  Matteo Brucoli; Roberta Sonzini; Michela Bosetti; Paolo Boffano; Arnaldo Benech
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2018-08-04

3.  Comparison of the efficacy of five standard topical hemostats: a study in porcine liver and spleen models of surgical bleeding.

Authors:  Valerio Antonio Paternò; Alessandro Bisin; Alessandro Addis
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 2.102

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.