A Comparative Study between Conventional Neosporin Impregnated Ribbon Gauze and Merocel Nasal Packing following Septoplasty: A Cross-Sectional Analytical Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3126/njms.v9i1.69616Keywords:
Merocel, Neosporin impregnated ribbon gauze, Pain, Septoplasty, SynechiaAbstract
Introduction: Nasal packing is one of the common procedures performed after septoplasty to prevent postoperative hemorrhage, septal hematoma, and synechia formation and to stabilize the remaining cartilaginous septum. A variety of nasal packs like conventional neosporin impregnated ribbon gauze (NIRG) and Merocel are used after septal surgeries. The aim of this study was to compare between conventional NIRG and Merocel nasal packing following septoplasty.
Methods: A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted among patients with conventional neosporin impregnated ribbon gauze (NIRG; Group A) and Merocel (Group B) nasal packing following septoplasty. Comparison was made in regards to post-operative pain levels, ability to prevent hemorrhage and synechiae formation in two groups.
Results: The mean pain score while pack in situ was 3.71 for Group A and 3.08 for Group B whereas 4.05 for Group A and 3.34 for Group B during removal of pack. Average number of bolster changed was 3, 2 and 2 in Group A and 5, 3 and 3 in Group B on operation day, first postoperative day and second postoperative day respectively. At 4 weeks postoperatively, the number of patients who developed synechiae were 4 (11%) in Group A and none (0 %) in Group B.
Conclusions: The morbidity associated with postoperative pain was minimal with Merocel packing. Hemostatic effects were best observed with NIRG packing, though the difference was not statistically significant. Synechiae formation which is one of the most important determinants of successful septoplasty was best prevented by Merocel packing. Hence, Merocel is superior to NIRG packing after septoplasty.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Nepal Journal of Medical Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright © by Nepal Journal of Medical Sciences. The ideas and opinions expressed by authors of articles summarized, quoted, or published in full text in this Journal represents only opinions of authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of Nepal Journal of Medical Sciences or the institute with which the author(s) is (are) affiliated, unless so specified.