Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Endoscopic outcomes of resorbable nasal packing after functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a multicenter prospective randomized controlled study

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nasal packings can aid in control of postoperative bleeding and healing following functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS), but traditional non-resorbable stents have several inherent drawbacks. We performed a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial to assess efficacy of resorbable nasal packing in patients undergoing FESS for chronic rhinosinusitis. A total of 66 patients for 88 nasal cavities were randomized to receive either hyaluronan resorbable packing (MeroGel®) or standard non-resorbable nasal dressing after FESS. All underwent preoperative rhinoscopy, CT of sinuses, and, after surgery, were reassessed by rhinoscopy at 2, 4, and 12 weeks in blinded fashion. A total of 44 nasal cavities (MeroGel®-group) received resorbable packing, whereas the remaining 44 were packed with non-resorbable nasal dressing. At follow-up endoscopic visit, the presence of nasal synechia was evaluated as primary outcome. Moreover, the tolerability and surgical handling properties of MeroGel® and its comfort were assessed by surgeons and patients. Preoperative severity of rhinosinusitis was similar in both groups. No significant adverse events were observed in all patients. Follow-up endoscopy showed a lower proportion of nasal adhesions in MeroGel®-group at both 4 (P = 0.041) and 12 weeks (P < 0.001). Moreover, an improvement of other endoscopic nasal findings such as re-epithelialization, presence of granulation tissue, and appearance of nasal mucosa of nasal cavities after FESS was observed in the MeroGel®-group. Tolerability and surgical handling properties of MeroGel® were positively rated by clinicians and the overall patient judged comfort of MeroGel® was favorable. In conclusion, MeroGel® can be considered a valid alternative to standard non-resorbable nasal dressings. It is safe, well-accepted, well-tolerated, and has significant advantage of being resorbable. Moreover, it may favor improved healing in patients undergoing FESS and reduce formation of adhesions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Christmas DA Jr, Krouse JH (1996) Powered instrumentation in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. I: Surgical technique. Ear Nose Throat J 75:33–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Krouse HJ, Parker CM, Purcell R, et al (1997) Powered functional endoscopic sinus surgery. AORN J 66:405, 408–411. doi:10.1016/S0001-2092(06)62685-9

    Google Scholar 

  3. Slack R, Bates G (1998) Functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Am Fam Physician 58:707–718

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuhn FA, Citardi MJ (1997) Advances in postoperative care following functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 30:479–490

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. May M, Levine HL, Mester SJ et al (1994) Complications of endoscopic sinus surgery: analysis of 2108 patients: incidence and prevention. Laryngoscope 104:1080–1083

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Benninger MS, Schmidt JL, Crissman JD et al (1991) Mucociliary function following sinus mucosal regeneration. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 105:641–648

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Benninger MS, Sebek BA, Levine HL (1989) Mucosal regeneration of the maxillary sinus after surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 101:33–37

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chandra RK, Kern RC (2004) Advantages and disadvantages of topical packing in endoscopic sinus surgery. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 12:21–26. doi:10.1097/00020840-200402000-00007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cruise AS, Amonoo-Kuofi K, Srouji I et al (2006) A randomized trial of Rapid Rhino Riemann and Telfa nasal packs following endoscopic sinus surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 31:25–32. doi:10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01122.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Samad I, Stevens HE, Maloney A (1992) The efficacy of nasal septal surgery. J Otolaryngol 21:88–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. von Schoenberg M, Robinson P, Ryan R (1993) Nasal packing after routine nasal surgery: is it justified? J Laryngol Otol 107:902–905. doi:10.1017/S0022215100124740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Toole BP (2001) Hyaluronan in morphogenesis. Semin Cell Dev Biol 12:79–87. doi:10.1006/scdb.2000.0244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen WY, Abatangelo G (1999) Functions of hyaluronan in wound repair. Wound Repair Regen 7:79–89. doi:10.1046/j.1524-475X.1999.00079.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rastrelli A, Beccaro M, Biviano F et al (1990) Hyaluronic acid esters, a new class of semisynthetic biopolymers: chemical and physicochemical characterization. Clin Implant Mater 9:199–205

    Google Scholar 

  15. Campoccia D, Doherty P, Radice M et al (1998) Semisynthetic resorbable materials from hyaluronan esterification. Biomaterials 19:2101–2127. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(98)00042-8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Davidson JM, Nanney LB, Broadley KN et al (1991) Hyaluronate derivatives and their application to wound healing: preliminary observations. Clin Mater 8:171–177. doi:10.1016/0267-6605(91)90027-D

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Benedetti L, Cortivo R, Berti T et al (1993) Biocompatibility and biodegradation of different hyaluronan derivatives (Hyaff) implanted in rats. Biomaterials 14:1154–1160. doi:10.1016/0142-9612(93)90160-4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Laurent TC, Fraser JR (1992) Hyaluronan. FASEB J 6:2397–2404

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Martini A, Morra B, Aimoni C et al (2000) Use of a hyaluronan-based biomembrane in the treatment of chronic cholesteatomatous otitis media. Am J Otol 21:468–473

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Caravaggi C, De Giglio R, Pritelli C et al (2003) HYAFF 11-based autologous dermal and epidermal grafts in the treatment of noninfected diabetic plantar and dorsal foot ulcers: a prospective, multicenter, controlled, randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care 26:2853–2859. doi:10.2337/diacare.26.10.2853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Colletta V, Dioguardi D, Di Lonardo A et al (2003) A trial to assess the efficacy and tolerability of Hyalofill-F in non-healing venous leg ulcers. J Wound Care 12:357–360

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pavesio A, Abatangelo G, Borrione A, et al (2003) Hyaluronan-based scaffolds (Hyalograft C) in the treatment of knee cartilage defects: preliminary clinical findings. In: Novartis Foundation Symposium No. 249. Tissue Engineering of cartilage and bone. Wiley, Chichester, pp 203–217

  23. Xu G, Chen HX, Wen WP et al (2003) Clinical evaluation of local application of Merogel after endoscopic sinus surgery. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi 38:95–97

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Miller RS, Steward DL, Tami TA et al (2003) The clinical effects of hyaluronic acid ester nasal dressing (Merogel) on intranasal wound healing after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128:862–869. doi:10.1016/S0194-5998(03)00460-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Catalano PJ, Roffman EJ (2003) Evaluation of middle meatal stenting after minimally invasive sinus techniques (MIST). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128:875–881. doi:10.1016/S0194-5998(03)00469-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lund VJ, Mackay IS (1993) Staging in rhinosinusitus. Rhinology 31:183–184

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wormald PJ, Boustred RN, Le T et al (2006) A prospective single-blind randomized controlled study of use of hyaluronic acid nasal packs in patients after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol 20:7–10

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Franklin JH, Wright ED (2007) Randomized, controlled, study of absorbable nasal packing on outcomes of surgical treatment of rhinosinusitis with polyposis. Am J Rhinol 21:214–217. doi:10.2500/ajr.2007.21.3011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Szczygielski K, Rapiejko P, Wojdas A et al (2007) Comparison of dissolvable sinus dressings in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Pol 61:852–856

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Karkos PD, Thinakararajan T, Goodyear P et al (2007) Day-case endoscopic sinus surgery using dissolvable haemostatic nasal packs: a pilot study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264:1171–1174. doi:10.1007/s00405-007-0338-5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that no conflict of interest is present because there are no financial relationships with the company that sponsored the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Berlucchi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berlucchi, M., Castelnuovo, P., Vincenzi, A. et al. Endoscopic outcomes of resorbable nasal packing after functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a multicenter prospective randomized controlled study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 266, 839–845 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0841-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0841-3

Keywords

Navigation