Search

When patients present to an emergency room (ER) with a nosebleed, one technique that physicians employ is the application of nasal packing. Merocel is a common nasal pack utilized in ER because of their low cost. Rapid Rhino is a nasal packing that is more comfortable for patients but is more costly than Merocel. Costing for epistaxis treatment is more than initial treatment costs and needs to consider rebleed rates. Using a retrospective cohort study design with covariates adjusted by propensity scores, we compared the costs associated with Merocel, and Rapid Rhino from the hospital and provincial healthcare perspectives. Merocel had a 26/62 (42%) total rebleed rate contrasted to Rapid Rhino’s 4/17 (24%). For both the hospital and provincial perspectives, our sample did not provide evidence that there was difference in costs between Merocel and Rapid Rhino.

Introduction: Nasal packing is a common procedure used to ensure haemostasis after nasal surgery. Materials and Methods: A prospective, randomized, controlled and double-blinded study was conducted on 80 consecutive subjects to investigate whether using Nasal Dressing Sponge® (NDS) instead of simple Merocel® might improve patients' postoperative experience of nasal packing. Results: During the stay of the tampons no differences were noticed between the two groups as regards the postoperative pain. When it comes to pain during the packing removal, patients complained of worse symptoms in the side packed with Merocel. There was no bleeding after the removal of Merocel, whereas 5,6% patients were subject to some bleeding when NDS was removed. Conclusion: Merocel and NDS gave similar results regarding haemostatic activity. Nasal Dressing Sponge could decrease pain during the removal of the nasal pack, while it could be associated to a bigger incidence of mild bleeding after removing the pack.

Background:The mainstay of management of epistaxis refractory to first aid and cautery is intranasal packing. This review aimed to identify evidence surrounding nasal pack use.Method:A systematic review of the literature was performed using standardised methodology.Results:Twenty-seven eligible articles were identified relating to non-dissolvable packs and nine to dissolvable packs. Nasal packing appears to be more effective when applied by trained professionals. For non-dissolvable packs, the re-bleed rates for Rapid Rhino and Merocel were similar, but were higher with bismuth iodoform paraffin paste packing. Rapid Rhino packs were the most tolerated non-dissolvable packs. Evidence indicates that 96 per cent of re-bleeding occurs within the first 4 hours after nasal pack removal. Limited evidence suggests that dissolvable packs are effective and well tolerated by patients. There was a lack of evidence relating to: the duration of pack use, the economic effects of pack choice and the appropriate care setting for non-dissolvable packs.Conclusion:Rapid Rhino packs are the best tolerated, with efficacy equivalent to nasal tampons. FloSeal is easy to use, causes less discomfort and may be superior to Merocel in anterior epistaxis cases. There is no strong evidence to support prophylactic antibiotic use.

Background Nasal packs are utilized nearly by otorhinolaryngologists for controlling epistaxis and post nasal procedures. Complications have been reported due to them; therefore the use of antibiotics is a common practice among otorhinolaryngologists.Objective To detect microbiological flora associated with nasal packing and find evidence to support the benefit of systemic antibiotics with it.Method A prospective, analytical study was conducted on 51 patients presenting to the Department of ENT, KUSMS from June to September 2015 who required nasal packing. Approval of the local Institutional review committee (IRC) was taken. The mid part of the pack was collected in a sterile bottle under aseptic technique and sent to microbiology department. Specimen collection, culture, identification tests were done according to the guidelines by American Society for Microbiology. Data were collected using the individual patient records and Microsoft Office Excel 2007. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 16.0.Result Among the 51 cultures; 33 (64.7%) were positive. In 18 (35.3%) cultures no organism was grown. Statistical analysis did not show significance between duration of pack kept with microbial growth (p=0.051) or the type of pack kept (p=0.212) .It showed significance with foul smell of the pack to the growth (p=

Posterior epistaxis is a serious condition that can be difficult to treat in a wilderness setting. The initial standard of care involves packing the affected nostril with a 7 to 9 cm nasal pack to tamponade the bleed. These packs are often unavailable outside of the emergency or operating room. This study set out to determine whether a posterior nasal pack could be constructed from the supplies present in a basic first aid kit in order to control massive nasal hemorrhage in a wilderness setting. A basic first aid kit was utilized to construct a posterior nasal pack that was inserted into an anatomical model and visibly compared with the Rapid Rhino (Posterior, 7.5 cm; Smith & Nephew, Austin, TX) nasal packing. The shape, size, and anatomical areas of compression (ie, into nasopharynx and posterior aspect of inferior turbinate) of this pack was similar to the commercially available posterior nasal pack. Placement in an anatomical model appears to provide similar compression as the commercially available posterior pack. This technique may provide short-term hemorrhage control in cases of serious posterior nasal hemorrhage where standard treatment options are not available.

Background The most frequent complication of nasotracheal intubation (NTI) is epistaxis. Epinephrine nasal gauze packing has been used conventionally as a pre-treatment for reducing epistaxis, but it carries a disadvantage of pain and anxiety in patients. However, xylometazoline drops are easier to administer and more convenient for patients. We aimed at comparing the effectiveness of xylometazoline drops and epinephrine merocele packing in reducing bleeding and postoperative complications in our population. Methods Our study enrolled 120 patients in a double-blind randomized controlled trial. We randomly allocated ASA1 or 2 adult patients into 2 groups: Group X and Group E. Group X received 0.1% xylometazoline nasal drops, and epinephrine (1:10,000) merocele nasal packing was used in Group E. The primary outcome was the incidence of bleeding during NTI; the severity of bleeding, navigability, bleeding during extubation, and postoperative complications were secondary outcomes. We used IBM SPSS and Minitab software for statistical analysis, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results We analyzed the data of 110 patients: 55 in Group X and 55 in Group E. The two groups did not have different bleeding incidence (56.4% vs 60.0%; P = 0.70); however, the incidence of severe bleeding was less with xylometazoline than with epinephrine (3.63% vs 14.54%; P < 0.05). We also observed less bleeding during extubation (38.2% vs 68.5%; P < 0.05) with xylometazoline. Other secondary outcomes were akin to both groups. Conclusion The incidence of severe and post-extubation bleeding was significantly less with xylometazoline. Hence, it may be an effective alternative for reducing the incidence and severity of epistaxis during NTI.

SummaryIntroduction: Septoplasty associated with a partial inferior turbinectomy is one of the most frequent surgeries performed in patients with nasal obstruction. The nasal pack has been used to control primary bleeding in these surgeries. Several complications have been related to the nasal pack, besides causing pain and a relevant discomfort. Some studies have investigated both the efficiency of the nasal pack to control bleeding and the complications after septoplasty and turbinectomy.Objective: To compare the degree of nasal bleeding among patients submitted to septoplasty with partial bilateral inferior turbinectomy, whether using the nasal pack or not.Method: An outlook study was performed to evaluate 60 patients diagnosed of a deviated nasal septum with an inferior concha hypertrophy. The patients were submitted to bilateral turbinectomy septoplasty under direct visualization. They were divided into 2 groups: without pack and with pack (Merocel* and protective sheath). These were evaluated after surgery, based on the evaluation of bleeding intensity.Result: It was observed that the post-surgical bleeding degree of the group submitted to partial bilateral inferior turbinectomy, who used the nasal pack, was lower than the group not using a pack.Conclusion: Patients submitted to septoplasty with partial bilateral inferior turbinectomy, not using a post-surgical nasal pack, appeared to bleed more than patients using a nasal pack.

The treatment of epistaxis has undergone significant changes in recent years. Gone are the days when patients had an uncomfortable posterior nasal pack inserted then spent several days on the ward only to bleed again on its removal. New packing devices, ingenious haemostatic agents and endoscopic surgical approaches have been developed to provide a variety of effective and well-tolerated treatment options. This paper will discuss the evolution and utility of these devices and techniques for managing difficult epistaxis patients.Modern packing devices are much easier to insert than traditional gauze packs and are no less effective. A major advance in the management of posterior epistaxis has been the development of the technique of endoscopic ligation.Anterior epistaxis is generally easy to control with local cautery. The optimal management of posterior epistaxis is to insert a pack to control the bleeding before taking the patient to the operating theatre to ligate the sphenopalatine artery endoscopically.

OBJECTIVES This study aims to investigate the effects of the removal of Merocel nasal packs on patients' anxiety after septoplasty. PATIENTS AND METHODS Fifty patients (26 males, 24 females; mean age 30 years; range 18 to 56 years) who underwent septoplasty in the Department of Ear Nose and Throat of our hospital between January 2013 and January 2015 were enrolled in this prospective study. Patients' anxiety was measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Anxiety levels were measured 24 hours preoperatively, 48 hours postoperatively before nasal pack removal, and 60 minutes after nasal pack removal. RESULTS The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores were 44.2±7.4 preoperatively, 45.1±7.1 postoperatively before pack removal, and 37.4±6.7 after pack removal. There was no statistically significant difference between pre- and postoperative evaluations. However, patients' anxiety decreased statistically significantly in the evaluation 60 minutes after pack removal (p=0.0). CONCLUSION We recommend administering soluble packs or sewing techniques without nasal packs after septoplasty due to concerns related to quality of life after surgery.

Objective:We report a case of traumatic cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoea following nasal packing with a Rapid Rhino inflatable balloon pack, as treatment for epistaxis.Method:Case report and review of the literature regarding this complication.Results:A thorough literature search was performed using PubMed. To our best knowledge, there have been no previous reports of cerebrospinal fluid rhinorrhoea following nasal packing. In our case, cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred due to fracture of the middle turbinate at its superior skull base insertion. The cerebrospinal fluid leak resolved spontaneously without the need for surgical intervention.Conclusion:This case report highlights not only the need for an appreciation of sinonasal anatomy and the potential risks associated with nasal packing, but also the need for adequate training in the use of commercially available nasal packs by medical practitioners attending patients with epistaxis.

Whitehead's varnish is a little known but excellent nasal packing agent. We review available literature on the historical aspects and clinical use of Whitehead's varnish. Our personal experience with Whitehead's varnish is described, and we strongly recommend its use.

There is little evidence to suggest that bilateral nasal packing increases intra-nasal pressures compared to a single pack (or is well tolerated) for uncontrolled unilateral epistaxis, but it is often performed and justified on those grounds. 15 volunteers were recruited according to strict criteria. Rapid Rhino(®) 5.5 cm anterior packs were inserted bilaterally following topical nasal preparation with co-phenylcaine. The first pack was inflated to a pre-determined pressure. The contralateral pack was inflated to match, and any intra-nasal pressure change on the first side was measured. The subject's level of discomfort was scored on a visual analogue scale. This procedure was repeated at incremental pressures. Higher ipsilateral intra-nasal pressures are achieved when additional contralateral nasal packs are inflated. This change in ipsilateral intra-nasal pressure is greater at higher total inflation pressures. At higher pressures, the subjects reported lower mean pain scores when bilateral packs were used compared to unilateral. This effect was only statistically significant at intra-nasal pressures of 140 mmHg and above (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test, p < 0.02). It is possible to increase the ipsilateral nasal cavity pressure by inserting a contralateral nasal pack. Although this extra pressure may be enough to tamponade further venous bleeding without significantly increasing a subject's discomfort, the high levels of pack pressure required, make this unlikely to be of significant use in the clinical setting.

A prospective study of 50 consecutive patients admitted for nasal packing for epistaxis reveals that only 20% re-bled after removal of packs and that 96% of those recurrences occurred during the first 4 h after pack removal. No patients required repacking or blood transfusion. The need for a 24-h observation period following nasal pack removal therefore appears not to be required, and the implementation of an early discharge policy for patients treated for epistaxis by nasal packing is therefore potentially feasible, and would result in significant cost savings.

Despite the popularity of Rapid Rhino packs, there are no clear guidelines regarding the volume of air to be inflated when used in the management of epistaxis. The manufacturers suggest that subjective assessment by pilot cuff palpation is used to guide inflation. However, studies have clearly demonstrated that clinicians are poor at judging balloon pressure by pilot cuff palpation when used in other settings. Our objective was to investigate the relationship between the volume of air inflated and the resultant intra-nasal pressure generated by nasal balloon packing. Twelve healthy subjects were packed with 5.5 cm Rapid Rhino packs, which were connected to a manometer and 20 ml syringe via a 3-way tap in a closed circuit. Increments of 2.5 mls of air were inflated and the resultant intra-nasal pack pressure was measured. There appeared to be a linear relationship between increasing volume and pack pressure. However, between individuals, there was a large variation in the intra-nasal pack pressure produced for a given fixed volume of air inflated. This is presumably due to variations in nasal anatomy. It may be that a manometer-measured, pressure guided nasal pack inflation technique would represent best practice, especially for less experienced staff.

A short questionnaire on the subject of the management of epistaxis was sent to forty accident & emergency departments in two NHS regions. Thirty replies were received (response of 75%). It was found that all departments were involved in the initial management of epistaxis, but the extent of that involvement varied considerably. One of the most obvious factors contributing towards the degree of involvement was the liaison between the accident & emergency and the ENT departments. Three departments never referred patients to the ENT department for follow-up. Nine departments performed their own nasal cautery, but half of these did not use any form of local anaesthesia. Twenty-seven departments used various forms of nasal packing but, of these, two-thirds did not use any form of local anaesthesia. Twenty-three departments allowed patients to go home with a nasal pack in situ. The results of this survey are discussed and a guideline to the management of epistaxis in an accident & emergency setting is suggested.

Introduction: Epistaxis is the most common nasal emergency and if nasal packing is required this commonly results in admission.Methods: A literature search could find no published (UK) protocols for the management of this common condition in accident and emergency (A&E) departments. This paper presents a retrospective review of 116 patients with epistaxis, following implementation of the new peer reviewed protocol in June 2004.Results: Apart from cautery, 62 had nasal packing inserted. Only 17 required admission. Forty-six patients were discharged with nasal packing in situ and only seven (16 per cent) returned due to bleeding. The overall return rate was 11 per cent.Discussion: We feel this is a safe and logical protocol. Compared to mandatory admission after nasal pack insertion, we saved 39 admissions in five months. There were also the added benefits to patients of being able to recuperate at home rather than in hospital and avoidance of the risk of hospital acquired infection.

Epistaxis is a common ear, nose and throat (ENT) emergency that frequently present to the accident and emergency (A&E) department. Anterior nasal packing is an efficient …

Nasal packing is routinely performed by many surgeons following nasal surgery and is also frequently used for the treatment of epistaxis. The use of nasal packing, however, is sometimes associated with serious complications such as aspiration, bowel perforation, obstructive apnea, and hypoxia. This author has also once had the experience of losing a nasal pack during a procedure performed on a mentally impaired patient. If a nasal pack could be easily tracked by x-ray, treatment would be faster and easier. We now use x-ray indicators quilted into our nasal packs, which enable us to find the packs quickly and easily with plain x-ray film.

The implementation of audit in most hospital departments in the UK has been instigated by the guidelines set out by the Royal Colleges. This paper aims to demonstrate the results of regular subregional audit meetings in the ENT departments involving three District Hospitals in East Anglia. We report the effects of audit meetings in improving the management of epistaxis, whereby a protocol for treatment and discharge was established, the duration of the nasal pack left in situ was reduced, and the material of the pack was changed.

A modification of an absorbent, non-adherent material (Telfa) is described for use as an anterior nasal packing. The ideal nasal packing should fulfill certain criteria. It should be easy to introduce and remove, contour to the nasal cavity to exert a tamponade effect, and should not prolapse or react unfavorably with the mucous membranes of the nose. The advantages of Telfa as a nasal packing is discussed and compared to previously described materials in this regard. During the past three years this pack has been used in over 800 patients for anterior epistaxis, septal and rhinoplastic surgery. The results have been extremely satisfactory, and the authors suggest their use in these cases.

It is not my purpose to discuss the conditions in which the posterior nasal plug is indicated but merely to illustrate a variation in technique that has proved beneficial both to the patient and to the surgeon. So far as can be ascertained, this variation has not been described previously. All those engaged in the practice of otorhinolaryngology have at one time or another been forced to resort to the use of the posterior nasal pack in the control of hemorrhage. In many instances the pack is inserted at the time of surgery while the patient is still on the operating table under general anesthesia. At other times the plug is inserted with the patient fully conscious of the procedure and suffering the utmost discomfort, as well as apprehension, due to the hemorrhage. All surgeons have used the soft rubber urethral catheter as a guide to recover the looped cord

An improved model of the rubber pneumatic nasal pack previously described1has been developed after 15 yr. of experience with nasal packing methods. The earlier model of the nasal pack (Fig. 1) was unavailable during World War II owing to the rubber shortage, and the present change was felt advisable when production was resumed. The old model of the pack without the breathing tube was found to have several minor disadvantages. In the case of a very large nasal fossa, the flat pack assumed an ovoid cross section on adequate inflation which allowed the pack to slip through the posterior choana like an olive-tipped bougie. In one case of postoperative polypectomy with considerable turbinate atrophy the inflated pack, fastened to the cheek by adhesive tape, was swallowed by a senile patient, causing considerable apprehension until the pack appeared in the patient's stools within 24 hr. (still inflated). The small