JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

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.

OBJECTIVE: To compare NasoPore (Stryker Canada, Hamilton, ON, Canada) and a traditional middle meatal spacer (MMS) composed of Merocel ((Medtronic Xomed, Mississauga, ON, Canada) placed in a vinyl glove finger in functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) with regard to postoperative bleeding, wound healing, and patient comfort.

DESIGN: A prospective, double-blind, randomized trial of 30 consecutive adults (age > 16 years) with chronic or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis undergoing bilateral FESS, excluding patients with significant difference in their sinus disease bilaterally using preoperative computed tomographic scan assessment (Lund-McKay scores > 2).

SETTING: Tertiary hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia.

METHODS: Preoperatively, all patients were randomized and blinded to receive NasoPore (Stryker Canada) on one side and Merocel on the other. Patients completed a questionnaire during their first postoperative week relating to their subjective assessment of pain, pressure, nasal blockage, swelling, and bleeding. Patients were evaluated 1 week postoperatively for packing removal and debridement, and associated discomfort and bleeding with the removal, as well as overall preference for either pack. A clinician blinded to the randomization process objectively assessed the healing status of the nasal cavities at 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient satisfaction, bleeding, and wound healing postoperatively.

RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled. There was no significant difference between the Lund-Mackay scores in both groups preoperatively (p = .80). Postoperatively, there was no significant difference between both groups with regard to patients' pain, pressure, blockage, swelling, bleeding, or discomfort on packing removal (p > .05). There was no statistical difference in the amount of bleeding associated with packing removal (p = .32). Mucosal grading at 4 weeks was significantly better for the traditional MMS (p = .03), but this difference disappeared at the 12-week visit (p = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS: The absorbable pack did not significantly reduce the risk of bleeding or patient discomfort compared with a traditional nonabsorbable MMS and was associated with significantly slower mucosal healing initially, an effect that disappeared after 3 months postoperatively. There was no significant patient preference for either pack.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app