SpringerLink
Log in

Safety of (rhino)septoplasty without nasal packing in routine ENT practice

  • Rhinology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This retrospective study assesses the risks and benefits linked to the non-use of nasal packing after a (rhino)septoplasty, compared with post-operative care with anterior nasal packing such as Merocel®.

Methods

Complication rates observed during the first week after surgery were compared between groups with and without use of classic nasal packing over a large sample of 534 patients, who had undergone either a closed or open procedure, with bilateral turbinoplasty, and with or without osteotomies. Complications listed include epistaxis, haematoma, impetiginization, septal perforation, hyperalgesia, and dyspnoea.

Results

No significant difference was observed between the group with and without packing regarding the immediate post-operative complications of epistaxis (4.4% of the cases with nasal packing versus 3% without, p = 0.918) and impetiginization (3% of the cases with nasal packing versus 4.2% without, p = 0.478). The technique used, as well as any osteotomies performed, had no impact on the results.

Conclusion

Non-use of nasal packing after a (rhino)septoplasty is a safe alternative to classic post-operative methods. Provided that there is a rigorous surgical technique and strict clinical control, it should be used as a principal technique in any routine practice due to its safety for patients immediately post-surgery.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hinderer KH (1971) History of septoplasty. Fundamentals of Anatomy and Surgery of the Nose. Aesculapis Publishing, Birmingham, pp 1–3

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cukurova I, Cetinkaya EA, Mercan GC, Demirhan E, Gumussoy M et al (2012) Retrospective analysis of 697 septoplasty surgery cases: packing versus trans-septal suturing method. Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica: Organo Ufficiale Della Societa Italiana Di Otorinolaringologia E Chirurgia Cervico-Facciale 32(2):111–114

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. von Schoenberg M, Robinson P, Ryan R et al (1993) Nasal packing after routine nasal surgery—is it justified? J Laryngol Otolo 107(10): 902–905

  4. Kaur J, Singh M, Kaur I, Singh A, Goyal S et al (2018) A comparative study of gloved versus ungloved merocel® as nasal pack after septoplasty. Niger J Clin Pract 21(11):1391–1395. https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_414_17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang YP, Wang MC, Chen YC, Leu YS, Lin HC, Lee KS (2011) The effects of Vaseline gauze strip, Merocel, and Nasopore on the formation of synechiae and excessive granulation tissue in the middle meatus and the incidence of major post-operative bleeding after endoscopic sinus surgery. J Chin Med Assoc 74:16–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kang, B, Jeong-Rok K, Jae-Min S, Il-Ho P, Heung-Man L, et al. (2017) Efficacy and safety of guardcel nasal packing after endoscopic sinus surgery: a prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 10(3): 248–253. https://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.20160.01081.

  7. Romano A, Salzano G, Dell’Aversana Orabona G, Cama A, Petrocelli M, Piombino P, Schonauer F, Iaconetta G, Salzano FA, Califano L (2017) Comparative study between biodegradable nasopore (BNP) and Merocel hemox 10 cm after septo-turbinoplasty procedure. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 21(4):669–673

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lemmens W, Lemkens P (2001) Septal suturing following nasal septoplasty, a valid alternative for nasal packing? Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 55(3):215–221

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Naghibzadeh B, Ali AP, Ghazal N et al (2011) Does post septoplasty nasal packing reduce complications? Acta Med Iran 49(1):9–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Certal V, Silva H, Santos T, Correia A, Carvalho C (2012) Trans-septal suturing technique in septoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rhinology 50(3):236–245. https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhino120.051

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eşki E, Işıl AG, Evren H, Ismail Y, et al. (2014) Effects of nasal pack use on surgical success in septoplasty. Kulak burun bogaz ihtisas dergisi: KBB. J Ear Nose Throat 24(4): 206–210. https://doi.org/10.5606/kbbihtisas.2014.82160.

  12. Jung YG, Ji WH, Young-Gyu E, Myung-Gu K et al (2011) Objective usefulness of thin silastic septal splints after septal surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy 25(3):182–185. https://doi.org/10.2500/ajra.2011.25.3584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Deniz M, Zafer Ç, Aklime I, Oral BD, Erdoğan G et al (2014) The impact of different nasal packings on post-operative complications. Am J Otolaryngol 35(5):554–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bingol F, Ali B, Eda S, Korhan K, Buket OB et al (2017) Comparison of early-period results of nasal splint and merocel nasal packs in septoplasty. Turk Otolarengol Arsivi/Turk Arch Otolaryngol 55(3):136–139. https://doi.org/10.5152/tao.2017.2259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yazici ZM, Sayin I, Erdim I, Gunes S, Kayhan FT, et al (2015) The effect of tobacco smoking on septoplasty outcomes: a prospective controlled study. Hippokratia 19(3)

  16. Kim JS, Sam HK (2017) Is nonabsorbable nasal packing after septoplasty essential? A meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 127(5):1026–1031. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dąbrowska-Bień J, Piotr HS, Iwonna G, Katarzyna Ł, Henryk S et al (2018) Complications in Septoplasty Based on a Large Group of 5639 Patients. Eur Arch Oto Rhino Laryngol 275(7):1789–1794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-4990-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen X, Zhaohui S, **aoyuan L, Boyi S, Tao X, Li Q, Fuquan C et al (2015) Comparative study on packing with or without Merocel after endoscopic sinus surgery. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou **g Wai Ke Za Zhi Chin J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 50(10):854–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.20140.040.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No financial disclosure.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ENT Internship, UCLouvain, Bruxelles, Belgium

    Nancy Seghers

  2. ENT Department, Clinique Saint-Pierre D’Ottignies (CSPO), Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Stéphane Ledeghen, Stéphanie Collet & Jean-Christophe Degols

Authors
  1. Nancy Seghers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stéphane Ledeghen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stéphanie Collet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean-Christophe Degols
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy Seghers.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethics approval

Ethics approval was waived by the local Ethics Committee within the clinic (CSPO) in view of the retrospective nature of the study for procedures being part of routine care with guaranteed anonymity of data. All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seghers, N., Ledeghen, S., Collet, S. et al. Safety of (rhino)septoplasty without nasal packing in routine ENT practice. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278, 4329–4333 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06713-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06713-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation