medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Anales de Otorrinolaringología Mexicana

Anales de Otorrinolaringología Mexicana
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2007, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Otorrinolaringología 2007; 52 (1)

Clinical and endoscopic assessment of septal suture vs nasal packing in patients with rhinoplasty

Sanjurjo MJL, Zubiaur GF, Moscoso JB, López UF, Montes BJJ
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 10-13
PDF size: 121.82 Kb.


Key words:

nasal packing, septal suture, endoscopic evaluation.

ABSTRACT

Background: Nasal packings are commonly used after surgical procedures such as septoplasty, rhinoplasty, turbinate management, intranasal biopsies and submucosal resections with the intention of assuring hemostasis, flap support and avoiding hematomas or movement of tissue grafts. Even though its advantages are many, nasal packings are bothersome and are usually accompanied by a great deal of anxiety and in some cases pain. Having nasal packing may increase the risk of cardiovascular complications, hypoxia, foreign body reaction, epistaxis, mucosal lesions and infections.
Objective: To determine morbility based on a clinical and endoscopic evaluation of transeptal sutures and nasal packing.
Material and methods: A transversal and cohort study in Hospital Español de México included patients with clinic and topographic diagnosis of septal deviation. A subjective and a postsurgery endoscopic evaluation were carried out 10 days after the intervention.
Results: There was a statistically significative difference in the clinic and endoscopic evolution with transeptal sutures or nasal packing.
Conclusion: Selection of a technique does not affect the postoperative evolution.


REFERENCES

  1. Guyuron B, Michelow BJ. Management of intraoperative nasal septal tears and perforations. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1994;18(1):61-3.

  2. Lubianca-Neto JF, Santanna GD, Mauri M, Arrarte JL, Brinckmann CA. Evaluation of time of nasal packing after nasal surgery: a randomized trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122(6):899-901.

  3. Camirand A. Nasal packing in rhinoplasty and septorhinoplasty: it is wiser to avoid. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999;104(4):1198.

  4. Genc E, Ergin NT, Bilezikci B. Comparison of suture and nasal packing in rabbit noses. Laryngoscope 2004;114(4):639-45.

  5. Lemmens W, Lemkens P. Septal suturing following nasal septoplasty, a valid alternative for nasal packing? Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 2001;55(3):215-21.

  6. Jones NS. Principles for correcting the septum in septorhinoplasty: two-point fixation. J Laryngol Otol 1999;113(5):405-12.

  7. Ahn MS, Maas CS, Monhian N. A novel, conformable, rapidly setting nasal splint material: results of a prospective study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003;5(2):189-92.

  8. Manzini M, Cuda D, Caroggio A. Nasal packing and antibiotic prophylaxis in septoplasty: a controlled study. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 1998;18(2):88-95.

  9. Giacomini PG, Alessandrini M, DePadova A. Septoturbinal surgery in contact point headache syndrome: long-term results. Cranio 2003;21(2):130-5.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Otorrinolaringología. 2007;52