Skip to main content

Effect of biodegradable versus nondegradable nasal packings in the outcome of functional endoscopic sinus surgery: clinical and histopathological study

Abstract

Background

Nasal packing has been used to prevent bleeding and formation of adhesions between the middle turbinate and lateral nasal wall. There has been a debate whether biodegradable packing might improve the outcome, or could a nondegradable dressing offer a better course after endoscopic sinus surgery.

Objective

To compare the effect of biodegradable versus nondegradable nasal packings on the outcome of endoscopic sinus surgery on clinical, endoscopic, and histopathologic basis.

Patients and Methods

Fifty patients with bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis of the same extent of sinus affection were enrolled in this study. None of them was a revision case. All patients had bilateral functional endoscopic sinus surgery by the same surgeon using the same technique of powered microdebrider utilization. At the end of the procedure, the operative cavity of each patient was randomly packed with Merocel as a nondegradable material on one side and a biodegradable material on the other side. We assessed the patients regarding immediate postoperative symptoms and endoscopic follow-up after 1- and 3-month postoperatively including biopsy taking for histopathological examination.

Results

Postoperative bleeding and patient discomfort were significantly higher in the nondegradable packing side, while biodegradable packing has caused significantly more edema. Merocel packed sides showed better epithelial restoration with marked epithelial hyperplastic changes and more goblet cells than the biodegradable sides. This difference was statistically significant 1-month postoperatively, but turned nonsignificant 3-month postoperatively.

Conclusions

Biodegradable nasal packing can offer patients a good quality of life during the early recovery period without beneficial or detrimental effects on postoperative mucosal healing. Nondegradable packs offer less post-functional endoscopic sinus surgery edema providing better aeration and rapid wound healing.

References

  1. 1

    Zhao X, Grewal A, Briel M, Lee JM. A systematic review of nonabsorbable, absorbable, and steroid-impregnated spacers following endoscopic sinus surgery. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2013; 3:896–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Chang EH, Alandejani T, Akbari E, Ostry A, Javer A. Double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of medicated versus nonmedicated merocel sponges for functional endoscopic sinus surgery. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011; 40 (Suppl 1):S14–S19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Hu KH, Lin KN, Li WT, Huang HM. Effects of Meropack in the middle meatus after functional endoscopic sinus surgery in children with chronic sinusitis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 72:1535–1540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Hesham A, Fathi A, Attia M, Safwat S, Hesham A. Laser and topical mitomycin C for management of nasal synechia after FESS: a preliminary report. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 268:1289–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Valentine R, Wormald PJ, Sindwani R. Advances in absorbable biomaterials and nasal packing. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2009; 42:813–828, ix.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Verim A, Seneldir L, Naiboglu B, Karaca CT, Kulekci S, Toros SZ, et al. Role of nasal packing in surgical outcome for chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis. Laryngoscope 2014; 124:1529–1535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Leunig A, Betz CS, Siedek V, Kastl KG. CMC packing in functional endoscopic sinus surgery: does it affect patient comfort? Rhinology 2009; 47:36–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Stevens RW. Nasal packing; the rubber pneumatic pack. AMA Arch Otolaryngol 1951; 54:191–194.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Wang J, Cai C, Wang S. Merocel versus Nasopore for nasal packing: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2014; 9:e93959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Taasan V, Wynne JW, Cassisi N, Block AJ. The effect of nasal packing on sleep-disordered breathing and nocturnal oxygen desaturation. Laryngoscope 1981; 91:1163–1172.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Yan M, Zheng D, Li Y, Zheng Q, Chen J, Yang B. Biodegradable nasal packings for endoscopic sinonasal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014; 9:e115458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    McIntosh D, Cowin A, Adams D, Rayner T, Wormald PJ. The effect of a dissolvable hyaluronic acid-based pack on the healing of the nasal mucosa of sheep. Am J Rhinol 2002; 16:85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Rajapaksa SP, Cowin A, Adams D, Wormald PJ. The effect of a hyaluronic acid-based nasal pack on mucosal healing in a sheep model of sinusitis. Am J Rhinol 2005; 19:572–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Wang YP, Wang MC, Chen YC, Leu YS, Lin HC, Lee KS. 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 postoperative bleeding after endoscopic sinus surgery. J Chin Med Assoc 2011; 74:16–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Stankiewicz JA. Complications of endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1989; 22:749–758.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Kim YS, Kim YH, Kim NH, Kim SH, Kim KR, Kim KS. A prospective, randomized, single-blinded controlled trial on biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam as a packing material after septoplasty. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2011; 25:e77–e79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Lu H, Zhang X. AquacelAg used in nasal packing after endoscopic sinus surgery. Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi 2005; 19:1059–1060.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Saedi B, Sadeghi M, Farschi S. Effect of polyvinyl acetal sponge nasal packing on post-operative care of nasal polyposis patients: a randomised, controlled, partly blinded study. J Laryngol Otol 2012; 126:380–384.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Shoman N, Gheriani H, Flamer D, Javer A. Prospective, double-blind, randomized trial evaluating patient satisfaction, bleeding, and wound healing using biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam (NasoPore) as a middle meatal spacer in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 38:112–118.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Cho KS, Shin SK, Lee JH, Kim JY, Koo SK, Kim YW, et al. The efficacy of Cutanplast nasal packing after endoscopic sinus surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Laryngoscope 2013; 123:564–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Qian D, Zhang HW, GAO CS, Yang Q, Li L. Clinical observation on the usability of NasoPore in functional endoscopic septoplasty. Chin Med Guide 2013; 2013:272–273.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Lu CMY, Dong BC, Zhang DX. Comparative observation on the clinical usability of biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam and Merocel during functional endoscopic septoplasty. Chin J Otorhinolaryngol Integ Med 2013; 21:184–186.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Kim ST, Cho KB, Kang IG. Preventive effects of polyurethane foam and polyvinyl acetate on bleeding and pain in young patients undergoing conchotomies. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 77:113–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Berlucchi M, Castelnuovo P, Vincenzi A, Morra B, Pasquini E. Endoscopic outcomes of resorbable nasal packing after functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a multicenter prospective randomized controlled study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 266:839–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Baumann A, Caversaccio M. Hemostasis in endoscopic sinus surgery using a specific gelatin-thrombin based agent (FloSeal). Rhinology 2003; 41:244–249.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Wormald PJ, Boustred RN, Le T, Hawke L, Sacks R. A prospective single-blind randomized controlled study of use of hyaluronic acid nasal packs in patients after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol 2006; 20:7–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Miller RS, Steward DL, Tami TA, Sillars MJ, Seiden AM, Shete M, et al. The clinical effects of hyaluronic acid ester nasal dressing (Merogel) on intranasal wound healing after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 128:862–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Wang TC, Tai CJ, Tsou YA, Tsai LT, Li YF, Tsai MH. Absorbable and nonabsorbable packing after functional endoscopic sinus surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 272:1825–1831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Wee JH, Lee CH, Rhee CS, Kim JW. Comparison between Gelfoam packing and no packing after endoscopic sinus surgery in the same patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 269:897–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Antisdel JL, Meyer A, Comer B, Jang D, Gurrola J, Khabbaz E, et al. Product comparison model in otolaryngology: equivalency analysis of absorbable hemostatic agents after endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 2016; 126 (Suppl 2):S5–S13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    McIntosh D, Cowin A, Adams D, Wormald PJ. The effect of an expandable polyvinyl acetate (Merocel) pack on the healing of the nasal mucosa of sheep. Am J Rhinol 2005; 19:577–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Maccabee MS, Trune DR, Hwang PH. Effects of topically applied biomaterials on paranasal sinus mucosal healing. Am J Rhinol 2003; 17:203–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Youssef MD, PhD, MRCS.

Additional information

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Madani, A., Youssef, A., Abduljalil, A. et al. Effect of biodegradable versus nondegradable nasal packings in the outcome of functional endoscopic sinus surgery: clinical and histopathological study. Egypt J Otolaryngol 34, 253–265 (2018). https://doi.org/10.4103/ejo.ejo_14_18

Download citation

Keywords

  • biodegradable
  • chronic rhinosinusitis
  • endoscopic sinus surgery
  • nondegradable
  • postoperative