J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2013 Apr;54(4):557-561. 10.3341/jkos.2013.54.4.557.

Clinical Results of Nasopore(R) Nasal Packing on Endonasal Dacryocystorhinostomy

• Baek JS
• Jang SY
• Park TS
• Jang JW
• Choi HS

• KMID: 2216934
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.4.557

Abstract

PURPOSE
To investigate the effects of Nasopore(R) as a nasal packing material on the surgical success rate and prevalence of postoperative complications after endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR).
METHODS
The present study included a total of 558 patients (699 eyes) with primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction who underwent endonasal DCR; 227 eyes were packed with Nasopore(R) and 472 eyes were packed with Merocel(R). The surgical success rate and postoperative complications such as synechiae, granulation, wound healing (osteal mucosal epithelium epithelialization), postoperative bleeding, infection, and revision rate were compared between the packing materials.
RESULTS
The surgical success rate of the Nasopore(R) group (99.1%, 98.6%) showed significantly better results than the Merocel(R) group (97.2%, 95.1%) at postoperative 1 and 3 months (p = 0.04, 0.03 Pearson chi-square test), whereas there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in postoperative surgical success rate at 1 week and 6 months. In comparison of postoperative complications, the Nasopore(R) group (0%) showed a lower incidence of delayed wound healing (delayed epithelialization of osteal mucosal epithelium) than the Merocel(R) group (2.3%; p = 0.013), whereas there was no difference in granulation, synechiae, postoperative bleeding, infection and revision rate (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The Nasopore(R) group showed a lower proportion of delayed wound healing and improvement of the surgical success rate at an early postoperative period after endonasal DCR compared to non-absorbable nasal packing material.

Keyword

Absorbable packing material; Dacryocystorhinostomy; Nasopore(R); Postoperative complication; Surgical success

MeSH Terms

Dacryocystorhinostomy
Epithelium
Eye
Hemorrhage
Humans
Incidence
Nasolacrimal Duct
Postoperative Complications
Postoperative Period
Prevalence
Wound Healing

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. Representative photographs showing (A) delayed epithelialization of osteal mucosal epithelium at 2 months, (B) normally recovered epithelialization of osteal mucocal epithelium at 2 months, (C) fully recovered mucosal epithelialization at 6 months.

• 

  Figure 2. Representative photographs showing tear meniscus height measured by slit-lamp examination and fluorescein staining. (A) Preoperative tear meniscus height, determined as 3 mm. (B) Tear meniscus height after tube removal, determined as 0.5 mm.

Reference

References

1. Weber R, Keerl R, Hochapfel F, et al. Packing in endonasal surgery. Am J Otolaryngol. 2001; 22:306–20.

2. Fairbanks DN. Complications of nasal packing. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986; 94:412–5.

3. von Schoenberg M, Robinson P, Ryan R.Nasal packing after routine nasal surgery--is it justified? J Laryngol Otol. 1993; 107:902–5.

4. Weber R, Hochapfel F, Draf W. Packing and stents in endonasal surgery. Rhinology. 2000; 38:49–62.

5. Anderson RL. Gelfoam packing after dacryocystorhinostomy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1977; 95:520.

6. Basmak H, Cakli H, Sahin A, et al. Comparison of endocanalicular laser dacryocystorhinostomy with and without endonasal procedures. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011; 249:737–43.