Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2003
The clinical effects of hyaluronic acid ester nasal dressing (Merogel) on intranasal wound healing after functional endoscopic sinus surgery.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Miller Robert Sean, Steward David L, Tami Thomas A, Sillars Michael J, Seiden Allen M, Shete Mona, Paskowski Christopher, Welge Jeff
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the efficacy of MeroGel, an absorbable hyaluronic acid nasal dressing (HA) in reducing synechia after functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) compared with Merocel, a nonabsorbable packing (NAP) requiring removal.
METHODS: We conducted a blinded, randomized, controlled trial of 37 patients requiring bilateral FESS for chronic sinusitis. Patients were randomized to placement of HA within the right or left middle meatus and NAP on the other side. Patients were evaluated at 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks postoperatively.
RESULTS: Blinded evaluation revealed 5 patients (14%) with synechia at last follow-up: 3 sides (8%) with HA and 3 (8%) with NAP. Thirteen patients (35%) had synechia at any visit, 10 sides (27%) with HA and 9 (24%) with NAP. Seven patients (19%) required lysis of synechia, 5 sides (14%) with HA and 3 (8%) with NAP.
CONCLUSION: We found no statistically significant difference between HA and NAP dressings.
METHODS: We conducted a blinded, randomized, controlled trial of 37 patients requiring bilateral FESS for chronic sinusitis. Patients were randomized to placement of HA within the right or left middle meatus and NAP on the other side. Patients were evaluated at 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks postoperatively.
RESULTS: Blinded evaluation revealed 5 patients (14%) with synechia at last follow-up: 3 sides (8%) with HA and 3 (8%) with NAP. Thirteen patients (35%) had synechia at any visit, 10 sides (27%) with HA and 9 (24%) with NAP. Seven patients (19%) required lysis of synechia, 5 sides (14%) with HA and 3 (8%) with NAP.
CONCLUSION: We found no statistically significant difference between HA and NAP dressings.