European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 275, Issue 10, pp 2481–2485 | Cite as

Comparison of the effect of the lidocaine, tetracaine, and articaine application into nasal packs on pain and hemorrhage after septoplasty

  • Vahit MutluEmail author
  • Zülküf Kaya



We purposed to compare the effects of certain local anesthetics soaked Merocel nasal packs on hemorrhage and pain after septoplasty.

Materials and methods

This study is a prospective double-blind study that was done in patients undergoing septoplasty. The study was created with 90 patients. All patients were divided into four groups. The each group was applied 2% lidocaine plus adrenaline, 2% tetracaine, 4% articaine plus adrenaline as study groups or 0.9% sodium chloride (NaCl) as control group in their Merocel packs after septoplasty. Verbal analog scale (VAS) was applied to all patients and the amount of postoperative hemorrhage was noted during postoperative period. The statistical analysis was performed using Student’s t test and Chi-square test on each patient group at each time point.


The study groups (2% lidocaine plus adrenaline, 2% tetracaine and 4% articaine plus adrenaline groups) had significantly better pain scores versus control group in the 1st, 4th, 8th, 16th and 24th postoperative hours (p < 0.05). The articaine plus adrenaline group had better pain scores than the lidocaine plus adrenaline group, and the lidocaine plus adrenaline group had better pain scores than the tetracaine group in the postoperative first day. Also articaine plus adrenaline group had less postoperative bleeding rate than the lidocaine plus adrenaline, tetracaine and control groups (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the lidocaine plus adrenaline, tetracaine and control groups in terms of postoperative hemorrhage (p > 0.05).


Topical articaine plus adrenaline application in the nasal packs can be safely used for less pain and bleeding following septoplasty.


Nasal pack Septoplasty Pain Bleeding Local anesthetic 



No funding was received for this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (name the institution/committee) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Karaman E, Gungor G, Alimoglu Y et al (2011) The effect of lidocaine, bupivacaine and ropivacaine in nasal packs on pain and hemorrhage after septoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 268(5):685–689CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Watson MG, Campbell JB, Shenoi PM (1989) Nasal surgery: does the type of nasal pack influence the results? Rhinology 27(2):105–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hesham A, Ghali A (2011) Rapid rhino versus merocel nasal packs in septal surgery. J Laryngol Otol 125(12):1244–1246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Madineh H, Amani S, Kabiri M, Karimi B (2017) Evaluation of the anesthetic effect of nasal mucosa with tetracaine 0.5% on hemodynamic changes and postoperative pain of septoplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Adv Pharm Technol Res 8(4):116–119CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Young AL, Leung GY, Cheng LL, Lau TT, Lam PT, Lam DS (2009) Randomised controlled trial on the effectiveness of lidocaine gel vs tetracaine drops as the sole topical anaesthetic agent for primary pterygium surgery. Eye (London) 23:1518–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Snoeck M (2012) Articaine: a review of its use for local and regional anesthesia. Local Reg Anesth 5:23–33CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eski E, Guvenç IA, Hızal E, Yılmaz I (2014) Effects of nasal pack use on surgical success in septoplasty. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 24(4):206–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Awan MS, Iqbal M (2008) Nasal packing after septoplasty: a randomized comparison of packing versus no packing in 88 patients. Ear Nose Throat J 87:624–627PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Orlandi RR, Lanza DC (2004) Is nasal packing necessary following endoscopic sinus surgery? Laryngoscope 114:1541–1544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buchanan MA, Dunn GR, Macdougall GM (2005) A prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial of the effect of topical bupivacaine on post-operative pain in bilateral nasal surgery with bilateral nasal packs inserted. J Laryngol Otol 119(4):284–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erkul E, Babayigit M, Kuduban O (2010) Comparison of local anesthesia with articaine and lidocaine in septoplasty procedure. Am J Rhinol Allergy 24:123–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Atatürk University Faculty of MedicineYakutiyeTurkey

Personalised recommendations