J Rhinol.  2018 Nov;25(2):86-90. 10.18787/jr.2018.25.2.86.

Effectiveness of Polyvinyl Acetate Sheeted with Carboxymethyl Cellulose as a Packing Material after Septoplasty

• Kim SD
• Kim D
• Kim DS
• Kim JA
• Lee DJ
• Cho KS

• KMID: 2431221
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.18787/jr.2018.25.2.86

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Although polyvinyl acetate (Merocel®) has been widely used as a packing material after septoplasty, removable nasal packing can increase patient discomfort, local pain, and pressure. Furthermore, the removal of nasal packing has been described as the most uncomfortable and distressing feature associated with septoplasty. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of polyvinyl acetate with carboxymethyl cellulose sheet (Rhinocel®) nasal packing on patient subjective symptoms, degree of bleeding, hemostasis, and wound healing following septoplasty.
SUBJECTS AND METHOD
Forty patients with nasal septum deviation requiring septoplasty were included. Following surgery, one nasal cavity was packed with Rhinocel® and the other one with Merocel®. Patient subjective symptoms while the packing was in situ, hemostatic properties, pain on removal, degree of bleeding on removal, duration of hemostasis after removal, postoperative wound healing, and the cost of the pack were evaluated.
RESULTS
Although the two types of packing materials were equally effective in controlling postoperative bleeding after septoplasty, Rhinocel® was significantly more comfortable while in situ and less painful on removal than Merocel®, which was associated with significantly more bleeding on removal and so more time was needed to control hemorrhage. There was no significant difference in postoperative wound healing or pack cost.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of Rhinocel® after septoplasty has less discomfort, greater patient satisfaction, and less bleeding on removal with no adverse reactions compared to Merocel® packing. Therefore, Rhinocel® may be a useful packing material after septoplasty.

Keyword

Carboxymethylcellulose sodium; Biocompatible materials; Nose; Septoplasty; Postoperative care; Pain; Polyvinyl acetate

MeSH Terms

Biocompatible Materials
Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium*
Hemorrhage
Hemostasis
Humans
Methods
Nasal Cavity
Nasal Septum
Nose
Patient Satisfaction
Polyvinyls*
Postoperative Care
Wound Healing
Biocompatible Materials
Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium
Polyvinyls

Reference

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

2). Ozcan C., Vayisoglu Y., Kilic S., Gorur K. Comparison of rapid rhino and merocel nasal packs in endonasal septal surgery. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008. 37:826–31.

3). Chandra RK., Kern RC. Advantages and disadvantages of topical packing in endoscopic sinus surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004. 12:21–6.

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

5). Cho KS., Shin SK., Lee JH., Kim JY., Koo SK., Kim YW, et al. The efficacy of Cutanplast nasal packing after endoscopic sinus surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Laryngoscope. 2013. 123:564–8.

6). Hajosch R., Suckfuell M., Oesser S., Ahlers M., Flechsenhar K., Schloss-hauer B. A novel gelatin sponge for accelerated hemostasis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010. 94:372–9.

7). Cenni E., Ciapetti G., Stea S., Corradini A., Carozzi F. Biocompatibility and performance in vitro of a hemostatic gelatin sponge. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2000. 11:685–99.

8). Cho KS., Park CH., Hong SL., Kim MJ., Kim JY., Kim YW, et al. Comparative analysis of Cutanplast and Spongostan nasal packing after endoscopic sinus surgery: a prospective, randomized, multi-center study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015. 272:1699–705.

9). Hong SL., Cho KS. Absorbable packing materials in the nasal cavity following sinonasal surgery. J Rhinol. 2014. 21:85–91.

10). Banglawala SM., Gill M., Sommer DD., Psaltis A., Schlosser R., Gupta M. Is nasal packing necessary after septoplasty? A meta-analysis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013. 3:418–24.

11). Dubin MR., Pletcher SD. Postoperative packing after septoplasty: is it necessary? Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2009. 42:279–85.

12). Mehta U., Huber TC., Sindwani R. Patient expectations and recovery following endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006. 134:483–7.

13). Valentine R., Wormald PJ., Sindwani R. Advances in absorbable biomaterials and nasal packing. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2009. 42:813–28.

14). Wee JH., Lee CH., Rhee CS., Kim JW. Comparison between Gelfoam packing and no packing after endoscopic sinus surgery in the same patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012. 269:897–903.

15). Acioglu E., Edizer DT., Yigit O., Onur F., Alkan Z. Nasal septal packing: which one? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012. 269:1777–81.

16). Chheda N., Katz AE., Gynizio L., Singer AJ. The pain of nasal tampon removal after nasal surgery: a randomized control trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009. 140:215–7.

17). Weber RK. Nasal packing and stenting. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolar yngol Head Neck Surg. 2009. 8:Doc02.

18). Ohta S., Nishiyama T., Sakoda M., Machioka K., Fuke M., Ichimura S, et al. Development of carboxymethyl cellulose nonwoven sheet as a novel hemostatic agent. J Biosci Bioeng. 2015. 119:718–23.

19). Szczygielski K., Rapiejko P., Wojdas A., Jurkiewicz D. Use of CMC foam sinus dressing in FESS. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010. 267:537–40.