Cargando…

Merocel versus Nasopore for Nasal Packing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes, including efficacy and complications, of Merocel versus Nasopore as a nasal packing material after nasal surgery. METHODS: Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified from electronic databases (The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, China Nationa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Jianzhang, Cai, Changping, Wang, Shili
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3977961/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24710428
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093959
_version_ 1782310485824110592
author Wang, Jianzhang
Cai, Changping
Wang, Shili
author_facet Wang, Jianzhang
Cai, Changping
Wang, Shili
author_sort Wang, Jianzhang
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes, including efficacy and complications, of Merocel versus Nasopore as a nasal packing material after nasal surgery. METHODS: Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified from electronic databases (The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Chinese Biomedical Database). Conference proceedings and references from identified trials and review articles were also searched. Outcome measures were pain during nasal packing, pain and bleeding upon packing removal, pressure sensation, nasal blockage, formation of synechiae, mucosal healing, and patients' general satisfaction. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials met criteria for analysis. Compared with Merocel, Nasopore significantly reduced patients' subjective symptoms including in situ pain (pain experienced while packing is in place), nasal pressure, pain and bleeding during packing removal, and increased patients' general satisfaction with nasal packing. There were no significant differences in nasal obstruction, adhesion and mucosal healing between the Merocel and Nasopore groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests that Nasopore may be superior to Merocel as a nasal packing material with regard to in situ pain, pain and bleeding upon removal, pressure, and general satisfaction and does not differ from Merocel in terms of nasal obstruction, tissue adhesion, and long-term mucosal healing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3977961
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39779612014-04-11 Merocel versus Nasopore for Nasal Packing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Wang, Jianzhang Cai, Changping Wang, Shili PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes, including efficacy and complications, of Merocel versus Nasopore as a nasal packing material after nasal surgery. METHODS: Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified from electronic databases (The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Chinese Biomedical Database). Conference proceedings and references from identified trials and review articles were also searched. Outcome measures were pain during nasal packing, pain and bleeding upon packing removal, pressure sensation, nasal blockage, formation of synechiae, mucosal healing, and patients' general satisfaction. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials met criteria for analysis. Compared with Merocel, Nasopore significantly reduced patients' subjective symptoms including in situ pain (pain experienced while packing is in place), nasal pressure, pain and bleeding during packing removal, and increased patients' general satisfaction with nasal packing. There were no significant differences in nasal obstruction, adhesion and mucosal healing between the Merocel and Nasopore groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence suggests that Nasopore may be superior to Merocel as a nasal packing material with regard to in situ pain, pain and bleeding upon removal, pressure, and general satisfaction and does not differ from Merocel in terms of nasal obstruction, tissue adhesion, and long-term mucosal healing. Public Library of Science 2014-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC3977961/ /pubmed/24710428 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093959 Text en © 2014 Wang et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Wang, Jianzhang
Cai, Changping
Wang, Shili
Merocel versus Nasopore for Nasal Packing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title Merocel versus Nasopore for Nasal Packing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_full Merocel versus Nasopore for Nasal Packing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_fullStr Merocel versus Nasopore for Nasal Packing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_full_unstemmed Merocel versus Nasopore for Nasal Packing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_short Merocel versus Nasopore for Nasal Packing: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_sort merocel versus nasopore for nasal packing: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3977961/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24710428
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093959
work_keys_str_mv AT wangjianzhang merocelversusnasoporefornasalpackingametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT caichangping merocelversusnasoporefornasalpackingametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT wangshili merocelversusnasoporefornasalpackingametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials