Comparison of polyvinyl alcohol coated nasal packing with non-absorbable nasal packing

Comprehensive review on endonasal endoscopic sinus surgery

Endonasal endoscopic sinus surgery is the standard procedure for surgery of most paranasal sinus diseases. Appropriate frame conditions provided, the respective procedures are safe and successful. These prerequisites encompass appropriate technical equipment, anatomical oriented surgical technique, proper patient selection, and individually adapted extent of surgery. The range of endonasal sinus operations has dramatically increased during the last 20 years and reaches from partial uncinectomy to pansinus surgery with extended surgery of the frontal (Draf type III), maxillary (grade 3-4, medial maxillectomy, prelacrimal approach) and sphenoid sinus. In addition there are operations outside and beyond the paranasal sinuses. The development of surgical technique is still constantly evolving. This article gives a comprehensive review on the most recent state of the art in endoscopic sinus surgery according to the literature with the following aspects: principles and fundamentals, surgical techniques, indications, outcome, postoperative care, nasal packing and stents, technical equipment.

Biodegradable nasal packings for endoscopic sinonasal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess biodegradable nasal packing effectiveness for improving postoperative symptoms and mucosal healing after endoscopic sinonasal surgery as compared with conventional/non-packing groups.

METHODS

Relevant articles were searched on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared biodegradable packings with conventional packings or no packing, reporting postoperative symptoms and/or mucosal healing outcomes.

RESULTS

This review included 19 studies, of which 11 compared biodegradable packings with conventional packings. Meta-analysis found that biodegradable packings significantly improved postoperative symptoms: bleeding at removal, pain at removal, pain in situ, and nasal blockage. Mucosal healing outcomes were inconsistent within studies, with no data could be pooled. Eight studies compared biodegradable packings with non-packing group. Postoperative symptom data in this comparison could not be pooled: A protective or equal effect on postoperative bleeding was reported in different studies; no difference was reported in pain status and nasal blockage. As for mucosal healing, meta-analysis showed that two arms of comparison had similar effect on synechiae, edema, infection and granulation at each time point.

CONCLUSION

The limiting evidence suggests that biodegradable nasal packings are statistically better than conventional packings in postoperative symptoms, and probably comparable to non-packing group, as in this comparison we could not carry out meta-analysis. No beneficial or detrimental effect on postoperative mucosal healing could be determined based on existing evidence.