European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2019
Comparative study of nasal septal retainer and nasal packing in patients undergoing septoplasty.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Fang Shengjian, Wei Xian, Ying Liyun, Zhu Liwei, Cui Jiawen, Ma Zhaoxin, Wang Weihua
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Nasal packing is frequently used after septoplasty and some complications caused by nasal packing are unavoidable. A nasal septal retainer has recently been developed. We evaluated the safety and clinical efficacy of the retainer in septoplasty, and the subjective symptoms of patients with the retainer were compared with Merocel nasal packing.
METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled study was performed in patients who had undergone septoplasty. In total, 39 patients were randomized to receive Merocel (n = 17) or the retainer (n = 22) after septoplasty. The deviation of nasal septum and nasal mucosa was evaluated by endoscopy. The clinical efficacy and subjective symptoms were compared using the visual analog scale.
RESULTS: During the packing/retaining period, the mean scores of headache, nasal obstruction, epiphora, and facial pressure in the retainer group were significantly lower than in the Merocel group (P < 0.05); the mean scores of nasal pain, nasal itching, rhinorrhea, dysphagia, and sleep disturbance in the retainer group were lower than in the Merocel group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. On the removal of Merocel/retainer, nasal pain was significantly lower in patients with the retainer (P < 0.05). In the retainer group, the incidence of grade 1 bleeding was 45.5%, and grade 0 bleeding was 54.5%. In the Merocel group, the incidence of grade 2 bleeding was 23.5%, grade 1 was 47.1%, and grade 0 was 29.4%.
CONCLUSIONS: The nasal septal retainer is suitable for use after septoplasty with more beneficial effects than nasal packing.
METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled study was performed in patients who had undergone septoplasty. In total, 39 patients were randomized to receive Merocel (n = 17) or the retainer (n = 22) after septoplasty. The deviation of nasal septum and nasal mucosa was evaluated by endoscopy. The clinical efficacy and subjective symptoms were compared using the visual analog scale.
RESULTS: During the packing/retaining period, the mean scores of headache, nasal obstruction, epiphora, and facial pressure in the retainer group were significantly lower than in the Merocel group (P < 0.05); the mean scores of nasal pain, nasal itching, rhinorrhea, dysphagia, and sleep disturbance in the retainer group were lower than in the Merocel group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. On the removal of Merocel/retainer, nasal pain was significantly lower in patients with the retainer (P < 0.05). In the retainer group, the incidence of grade 1 bleeding was 45.5%, and grade 0 bleeding was 54.5%. In the Merocel group, the incidence of grade 2 bleeding was 23.5%, grade 1 was 47.1%, and grade 0 was 29.4%.
CONCLUSIONS: The nasal septal retainer is suitable for use after septoplasty with more beneficial effects than nasal packing.