Cureus · 2026
A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes of Different Nasal Packs in Nasal Surgery.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Singh Akhil P, Singh Saloni, Kumar Dharmendra, Gupta Ritu
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Nasal obstruction is a common symptom in otorhinolaryngology, often necessitating surgical interventions that significantly impact patient quality of life. Various nasal packing materials are available, each with distinct properties influencing patient comfort and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate patient satisfaction and clinical effectiveness of three nasal packing materials, VelNez, Merocel, and Rapid Rhino nasastent, under standard surgical conditions.
METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label, three-arm, single-center study was conducted at a tertiary medical institute after obtaining institutional ethics committee approval and registration in a national clinical trial registry. Thirty patients (18-70 years) undergoing nasal surgery were randomized into three groups: VelNez (n=10), Rapid Rhino nasastent (n=10), and Merocel (n=10). Patients were followed for 21±3 days with two follow-up visits. Outcomes assessed included hemostasis, patient comfort, and adverse events. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Student's t-test (p ≤ 0.05).
RESULTS: All participants completed the study, achieving effective hemostasis. Time to hemostasis was shortest with VelNez (3.9±0.92 min) compared to Rapid Rhino (9.6±0.60 min) and Merocel (9.2±0.78 min) (p = 0.000016). VelNez had the shortest dissolution period (4.8±1.37 days) versus Rapid Rhino nasastent (12.5±1.71 days) (p = 0.000043). Patient-reported comfort (VAS 1-10) and symptomatic relief, including pain, obstruction, and nasal discharge, were better in VelNez as compared to Merocel. No adhesions or adverse events were observed. Endoscopic Lund-Kennedy scores indicated similar healing outcomes among all three packs.
CONCLUSION: All three nasal packs were safe and effective. VelNez and Rapid Rhino nasastent, due to their fragmentable nature, offered improved patient comfort compared to Merocel, with VelNez showing the fastest dissolution.
METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label, three-arm, single-center study was conducted at a tertiary medical institute after obtaining institutional ethics committee approval and registration in a national clinical trial registry. Thirty patients (18-70 years) undergoing nasal surgery were randomized into three groups: VelNez (n=10), Rapid Rhino nasastent (n=10), and Merocel (n=10). Patients were followed for 21±3 days with two follow-up visits. Outcomes assessed included hemostasis, patient comfort, and adverse events. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Student's t-test (p ≤ 0.05).
RESULTS: All participants completed the study, achieving effective hemostasis. Time to hemostasis was shortest with VelNez (3.9±0.92 min) compared to Rapid Rhino (9.6±0.60 min) and Merocel (9.2±0.78 min) (p = 0.000016). VelNez had the shortest dissolution period (4.8±1.37 days) versus Rapid Rhino nasastent (12.5±1.71 days) (p = 0.000043). Patient-reported comfort (VAS 1-10) and symptomatic relief, including pain, obstruction, and nasal discharge, were better in VelNez as compared to Merocel. No adhesions or adverse events were observed. Endoscopic Lund-Kennedy scores indicated similar healing outcomes among all three packs.
CONCLUSION: All three nasal packs were safe and effective. VelNez and Rapid Rhino nasastent, due to their fragmentable nature, offered improved patient comfort compared to Merocel, with VelNez showing the fastest dissolution.