Literature DB >> 30193353

Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy for an Intranasal Airway Device in Nasal Surgery.

Prem B Tripathi1, Pejman Majd1,2, Tuan Ngo1,2, Jefferey T Gu2,3, Giriraj K Sharma1, Christopher Badger2,3, Naveen D Bhandarkar1, Brian J F Wong1,3.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Postoperative packing in nasal surgery often results in nasal obstruction and discomfort. Commercially available silicone intranasal airways (IAs) serve as dual-nasal airway tubes aimed at alleviating this process, but the safety and efficacy of these devices are unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an intraoperatively placed IA device in rhinoplasty and nasal surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this retrospective record review, the medical records of patients undergoing nasal surgery with insertion of the IA at a single institution from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed. After review of over 200 patients, a questionnaire was developed to assess device efficacy. EXPOSURES: Use of the IA device. The IA is 12 cm long, anchored across the columella, extends distally along the nasal floor, and has a proximal external portion used for cleaning and maintaining patency. Placed intraoperatively, the device aims to support air flow postoperatively in the face of edema, hemorrhage, and packing.
RESULTS: A total of 302 operations in 300 patients were analyzed, including primary and revision septorhinoplasty. A total of 24 (7.9%) patients self-removed or inadvertently dislodged the IA. Minor acute postoperative complications not unique to airway insertion included cellulitis in 4 (1.3%) participants and epistaxis in 6 (2%). Postoperatively, 1 (0.3%) patient developed dehiscence along transcolumellar incisions. A total of 59 patients (100% compliance) completed the efficacy questionnaire. The mean breathing score was between good and average (2.9 of 5), comfort scores between comfortable and average (2.9 of 5), and mean ease of irrigation score was between very easy and easy (1.96 of 5). The device was irrigated on average 3.57 times per day. A total of 43 (76%) particpiants had full patency or only partial obstruction, compared with 13 (24%) patients with total obstruction. In all patients, with or without obstruction, the effect lasted an average of 4 days. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The device is safe and well-tolerated for maintaining patency of the nasal airway in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and nasal reconstruction without increased risk of incisional dehiscence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30193353      PMCID: PMC6439732          DOI: 10.1001/jamafacial.2018.0955

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg        ISSN: 2168-6076            Impact factor:   4.611


  19 in total

1.  Nasal tip blood supply: confirming the safety of the transcolumellar incision in rhinoplasty.

Authors:  R J Rohrich; A R Muzaffar; J P Gunter
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.730

2.  Reconstruction of the nasal septum using perforated and unperforated polydioxanone foil.

Authors:  Daniel J Tweedie; Stephen Lo; Julian M Rowe-Jones
Journal:  Arch Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr

3.  A simple method of fabricating nasal packing armed with ventilation tube.

Authors:  Seung Chul Rhee; Jee Soo Kim
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 1.046

4.  A case-controlled, retrospective, comparative study on the use of biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam versus polyvinyl acetate sponge after nasal fracture reduction.

Authors:  H-S Jeong; H-K Lee; H-S Kim; M-S Moon; K-C Tark
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 2.789

5.  Simultaneous open rhinoplasty and alar base excision for secondary cases.

Authors:  Ali Teoman Tellioğlu; Ibrahim Vargel; Tarik Cavuşoğlu; Kadir Cimen
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.326

6.  The usefulness of nasal packing with vaseline gauze and airway silicone splint after closed reduction of nasal bone fracture.

Authors:  Hyo Young Kim; Sin Rak Kim; Jin Hyung Park; Yea Sik Han
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2012-11-14

7.  An analysis of 101 primary cosmetic rhinoplasties.

Authors:  Shahrokh C Bagheri; Husain Ali Khan; Alireza Jahangirnia; Samiei Sahand Rad; Hossein Mortazavi
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.895

8.  Practice patterns in the perioperative treatment of patients undergoing septorhinoplasty: a survey of facial plastic surgeons.

Authors:  Scott Shadfar; Allison M Deal; Andrea M Jarchow; Hojin Yang; William W Shockley
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2014 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.611

9.  Comparison of totally occlusive nasal pack, internal nasal splint, and transseptal suture technique after septoplasty in terms of immediate respiratory distress related to anesthesia and surgical complications.

Authors:  Melih Cayonu; Aydın Acar; Eyup Horasanlı; Aytug Altundag; Murat Salihoglu
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 1.494

10.  Development of a severity classification system for subjective nasal obstruction.

Authors:  Michael J Lipan; Sam P Most
Journal:  JAMA Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.611

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.