Delayed epistaxis after endoscopic transnasal pituitary tumor resection: clinical characteristics, risk factors, treatment and prevention.

BACKGROUND: Delayed epistaxis after endoscopic transnasal pituitary tumor resection (ETPTR) is a critical complication, tending to cause aspiration or hemorrhagic shock. This study assessed clinical characteristics, risk factors, and provide treatment and prevention advice of this complication. METHODS: This was a retrospective monocentric analysis of 862 patients who underwent ETPTR. Statistical analyses of clinical data revealed the incidence, sources and onset time of delayed epistaxis. Univariate analysis and binary logistic regression were used to identify risk factors. RESULTS: The incidence of delayed epistaxis was 2.78% (24/862), with an average onset time of 20.71 ± 7.39 days. The bleeding sources were: posterior nasal septal artery branch of sphenopalatine artery (12/24), multiple inflammatory mucosae (8/24), sphenopalatine artery trunk (3/24) and sphenoid sinus bone (1/24). Univariate analysis and binary logistic regression analysis confirmed that hypertension, nasal septum deviation, chronic rhinosinusitis and growth hormone pituitary tumor subtype were independent risk factors for delayed epistaxis. Sex, age, history of diabetes, tumor size, tumor invasion and operation time were not associated with delayed epistaxis. All patients with delayed epistaxis were successfully managed through endoscopic transnasal hemostasis without recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed epistaxis after ETPTR tends to have specific onset periods and risk factors. Prevention of these characteristics may reduce the occurrence of delayed epistaxis. Endoscopic transnasal hemostasis is recommended as the preferred treatment for delayed epistaxis.

Plus moist HS-W®: a new nasal packing material for the middle meatus in endoscopic sinus surgery.

PURPOSE: Removal of the current calcium alginate packing materials to the middle meatus in endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is usually accompanied by discomfort or pain owing to the hard and brittle nature of these materials. Plus moist HS-W® is a new calcium alginate packing material released in 2022 developed to overcome this issue by changing the uronic acid component. We aimed to compare the discomfort/pain during the removal of Plus moist HS-W® with Kaltostat®, as well as their suitability as packing materials in ESS. METHODS: Kaltostat® and Plus moist HS-W® were used as packing materials in 22 and 21 patients who underwent ESS in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Patients were asked to rate the pain during the packing removal 10 days after ESS using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). The ratio of residual packing materials, number of suctions (insertions/extractions of the suction cannula), and time required to remove packing materials were measured. Postoperative complications such as hemorrhage, local infection, lateralization of the middle turbinate, and synechia of the middle meatus were also evaluated. RESULTS: The Plus moist HS-W® group exhibited significantly lower NRS pain scores, a lower ratio of residual packing materials, a reduced number of suctions, and a shorter time required to remove the packing. No obvious postoperative complications occurred in both groups except for one suspicious case of a slight infection in the Kaltostat® group. CONCLUSION: Compared with Kaltostat®, Plus moist HS-W®, characterized by better gelatinization than Kaltostat®, benefits patients by minimizing discomfort/pain during removal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

[Fundamentals and practice of the application of nasal packing in sinonasal surgery]. / Grundlagen und Praxis der Anwendung von Nasentamponaden in der endonasalen Chirurgie.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This paper presents an overview on nasal packing materials which are available in Germany. The current literature is analyzed whether there are robust criteria regarding use nasal packing after sinonasal surgery, whether there are fundamental and proven advantages or disadvantages of products, and what this means in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Selective literature analysis using the PubMed database (key words "nasal packing", "nasal tamponade", "nasal surgery", "sinonasal surgery", or "sinus surgery"), corresponding text books and resulting secondary literature. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Because of systematic methodological shortcomings, the literature does not help in the decision-making about which nasal packing should be used after which kind of sinonasal surgery. In fact, individual approaches for the many different clinical scenarios are recommended. In principle, nasal packing aims in hemostasis, should promote wound healing, and should not result in secondary morbidity. Nasal packing materials should be smooth (non-absorbable materials), inert (absorbable materials), and should not exert excessive pressure. Using non-absorbable packing entails the risk of potentially lethal aspiration and ingestion. For safety reasons inpatient control is recommended as long as this packing is in situ. With other, uncritical packing materials and in patients with special conditions, outpatient control could be justified.

Using Surgicel-wrapped Merocel to reduce pain during the removal of nasal packing.

BACKGROUND: Merocel is a commonly used material for nasal packing; nevertheless, the majority of patients experience pain when the nasal packing is removed.Aims/Objectives: This study aims to introduce a novel technique for nasal packing using Surgicel-wrapped Merocel. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who underwent septoplasty received either Merocel or Surgicel-wrapped Merocel as nasal packing. Clinical complications related to bleeding and subjective symptoms associated with the packing materials were assessed. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2021, a total of thirty-three patients with a deviated nasal septum underwent septoplasty. Among them, eight patients received Merocel nasal packing, while twenty-five patients were treated with the new nasal packing technique involving Surgicel-wrapped Merocel. We observed a significant reduction in pain during removal in the Surgicel-wrapped Merocel group compared to the Merocel group (p = .008). However, no significant differences were noted in other discomforts related to packing or bleeding after removal between these two groups.Conclusions and Significance:Using Surgicel-wrapped Merocel as nasal packing following septoplasty is an effective method to alleviate pain during removal.

Effectiveness Of Computed Tomography-Guided Nasotracheal Intubation Procedure On Predicting Tube Advancement Difficulty And Preventing Epistaxis: A Prospective Case-Control Study.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of computed tomography-guided nasotracheal intubation procedure in predicting tube advancement difficulty and preventing epistaxis. METHODS: The prospective study was conducted at Erciyes University Faculty of Dentistry from April 2018 to June 2019 and comprised maxillofacial surgery patients of either gender aged 18-50 years who were due to undergo bimaxillary orthognathic surgery, which was defined as American Society of Anaesthesiology grade I or II. The space where the tube was to be passed in the internal nasal valve region was measured horizontally and vertically using computed tomography. A single experienced anaesthesiologists intubated all the patients who were later divided into 'easy' group A and 'difficult' group B on the basis of the effort required to advance the tube through the nasal passage. Data was analysed using JASP version 0.14.1.0). RESULTS: Of the 60 patients, 42(70%) were females and 18(30%) were males. The overall mean age was 29.0±10.5 years and the mean body mass index value was 23.6±4.0 kg/m 2 (p>0.05). There were 28(46.6%) patients in group A, and 32(53.3%) in group B. Median distances were significantly shorter and epistaxis was significantly higher in group B compared to group A (p<0.001). The cut-off values to reveal the distance at which difficulty may be experienced while advancing the tube, determined through receiver operating characteristic analysis, were 1.09 cm for vertical and 0.39cm for horizontal distances. CONCLUSIONS: The nasotracheal intubation procedure under the guidance of computed tomography could help predict the difficulty of tube advancement, and could thus prevent epistaxis and other related nasal intubation complications. Clinical trial number: NCT05525754.

Rhinologist Use of Antibiotics With Nasal Packing for Epistaxis.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence supporting the usage of prophylactic antibiotics in the setting of nasal packing for epistaxis. It is unclear what current antiobiotic usage patterns are by otolaryngologists. OBJECTIVES: Characterize the antibiotic prescribing practices employed by otolaryngologists in the management of epistaxis patients treated with packing as well as the underlying rationale. Explore the impact of experience, geography, and academic affiliation on treatment decisions. METHODS: An anonymous survey of antibiotic prescribing patterns for patients with epistaxis requiring nasal packing was distributed to all physician members of the American Rhinologic Society. Responses to each question were descriptively summarized including 95% confidence intervals and were linked to demographics using Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and thirteen surveys were distributed with 307 responses (27.6%). Antibiotic prescription rates varied based on packing type, with 20.0% prescribing antibiotics for dissolvable packing compared to 84.2% to 84.6% for nondissolvable packing. The absorbance of nondissolvable packing does not impact the decision to prescribe antibiotics (P > .999). Precisely 69.7% (95% CI: 64.0%-74.8%) stop antibiotics immediately following packing removal. Precisely 85.6% (95% CI: 81.6%-89.9%) cite the risk of toxic shock syndrome (TSS) when prescribing antibiotics. Notable regional differences include greater utilization of amoxicillin-clavulanate in the Midwest (67.6%) and Northeast (61.4%) as compared with the South (42.1%) and West (45.1%) (P = .013). Further, years in practice were positively associated with several patterns including prescribing antibiotics for patients with dissolvable packing (P = .008), citing prevention of sinusitis as a rationale for antibiotic use (P < .001), and a higher likelihood of having treated a patient with TSS (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic use in patients with epistaxis controlled with nondissolvable packing is common. Treatment patterns are influenced by geography, years in practice, and practice type. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Tranexamic acid administration practice in otolaryngology head & neck surgery; international survey.

PURPOSE: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is a potent pro-coagulation drug. Pre-operative, preventive TXA administration and TXA use for active bleeding are established treatments in many medical situations; yet, less is known about its use in otolaryngology head and neck surgery practice. The primary study goals were: MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an international survey exploring TXA administration strategy. The electronic, anonymous, questionnaire was emailed to all registered Israeli and American Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) physicians, investigating TXA administration: RESULTS: Overall, 317 otolaryngologists participated in the study. TXA was administered to 40.5 % of the pediatric population and 50 % of the adult patients when needed. Epistaxis was the most common indication for TXA administration (48-55 %). A small number of otolaryngologists, 4-13 %, recommended preventive TXA for various operations. More surgeons include TXA in their practice and adjusted the dose according to renal function in academic compared to non-academic medical centers and among otolaryngologists practicing in Israel compared to the United States. CONCLUSIONS: TXA is provided by many otolaryngologists to treat active epistaxis but to a substantially lesser extent as a preventive measure. TXA is given to children and adults, some with substantial comorbidities. Treatment is more common among surgeons working in academic institutes and medical centers in Israel.

Outcomes of long-term von Willebrand factor prophylaxis use in von Willebrand disease: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Von Willebrand Disease (VWD) is a common inherited bleeding disorder. Patients with VWD suffering from severe bleeding may benefit from the use of secondary long-term prophylaxis. AIM: Systematically summarize the evidence on the clinical outcomes of secondary long-term prophylaxis in patients with VWD and severe recurrent bleedings. METHODS: We searched Medline and EMBASE through October 2019 for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies (OS) assessing the effects of secondary long-term prophylaxis in patients with VWD. We used Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool and the RoB for Non-Randomized Studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool to assess the quality of the included studies. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We included 12 studies. Evidence from one placebo controlled RCT suggested that VWD prophylaxis as compared to no prophylaxis reduced the rate of bleeding episodes (Rate ratio [RR], .24; 95% confidence interval [CI], .17-.35; low certainty evidence), and of epistaxis (RR, .38; 95%CI, .21-.67; moderate certainty evidence), and may increase serious adverse events RR 2.73 (95%CI .12-59.57; low certainty). Evidence from four before-and-after studies in which researchers reported comparative data suggested that VWD prophylaxis reduced the rate of bleeding (RR .34; 95%CI, .25-.46; very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: VWD prophylaxis treatment seems to reduce the risk of spontaneous bleeding, epistaxis, and hospitalizations. More RCTs should be conducted to increase the certainty in these benefits.

Peri-operative complications of sphenopalatine artery ligation: a 10-year series from two secondary care centres.

BACKGROUND: There is currently limited evidence regarding the potential complications of sphenopalatine artery ligation. The post-operative outcomes at two secondary care centres over a 10-year period were reviewed. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of patients undergoing emergency and elective sphenopalatine artery ligation between January 2011 and January 2021. Their demographics, peri-operative care and post-operative outcomes were recorded. The median follow-up time was 54 days (range, 0-2657 days). RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were included. Four patients (4.4 per cent) had a septal perforation at post-operative review. Nineteen patients (20.9 per cent) had post-operative bleeding that extended their in-patient stay, with five patients (5.5 per cent) requiring revision surgery. Pre-operative non-dissolvable nasal packing was used a median of 1 time (range, 0-8 times). CONCLUSION: Further research on outcomes of sphenopalatine artery ligation is needed. Pre-operative non-dissolvable nasal packing, concurrent septal surgical procedures, surgical techniques, and co-morbidities such as hypertension represent potential confounding factors that could not be further assessed in this small, retrospective study.

Effects of nasal irrigation after endoscopic transsphenoidal resection in patients with pituitary adenomas: A randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to explore the methods to reduce or prevent nasal complications after endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma resection. We also examined the effects of nasal irrigation after this procedure was performed. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed. Sixty patients of a tertiary hospital were enrolled in this study. The subjects were randomly divided into a control group and an intervention group. The subjects of the control group were given routine guidance, and 20 mL of normal saline was atomized through inhalation. The gauze was removed 7 days after surgery. The patients of the intervention group were given 50 mL of a 2% saline solution at 37°C to 38°C for bilateral nasal irrigation for 1 week. After that, patients were given 50 mL of a 0.9% normal saline solution at 37°C to 38°C for bilateral nasal irrigations. The complications of the two groups were collected at baseline, 1 week after intervention, 1 month, and 3 months after intervention. The data were analyzed using the chi-square test. RESULTS: A 1-month after intervention, there were significant differences in dysosmia, epistaxis, and nasal adhesion between the intervention and control groups. A 3-month after intervention, only olfactory disturbances were significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal irrigation helps reduce the incidence of complications such as epistaxis and nasal adhesions in the early postoperative period. It can also promote the elimination or reduction of olfactory disturbances.

For nasotracheal intubation, which nostril results in less epistaxis: right or left?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nasotracheal intubation is usually required in patients undergoing oromaxillofacial, otolaryngological or plastic surgery to prevent the airway encroaching into the operating field. Epistaxis is the most common complication, but which nostril is associated with a lower incidence and severity of epistaxis is still unclear. OBJECTIVE: When both nostrils are patent, to determine the preferred nostril for nasotracheal intubation under general anaesthesia. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was the incidence of epistaxis and the secondary outcomes included the incidence of severe epistaxis, the time required to pass the tube through the nasal passage and total intubation time. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from database inception to 1 March 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The only studies included were RCTs comparing epistaxis related to nasotracheal intubation via right or left nostril, in adult surgery patients undergoing general anaesthesia. RESULTS: Ten RCTs with 1658 patients were included. Compared with the left nostril, intubation via the right nostril was associated with a significantly lower incidence of epistaxis: risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were 0.78 (0.62 to 0.99), P = 0.04: a lower incidence of severe epistaxis (five studies, n=923), RR 0.40 (0.22 to 0.75), P = 0.004: and a shorter intubation time (three studies, n=345), mean difference -7.28 (-14.40 to -0.16) seconds, P = 0.05. In two studies (n=310), no significant difference between the right and left nostril was observed in the time to pass the tube through the nasal passages, mean difference -0.59 (-1.95 to 0.77) s, P = 0.40. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the current available evidence, when both nostrils are patent, the right nostril is more appropriate for nasotracheal intubation, with a lower incidence and severity of epistaxis and faster intubation time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020169949).

Ephedrine pretreatment for nasotracheal intubation-related epistaxis in maxillofacial surgery with sufficient lubrication: A randomized clinical trial.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Prior to nasotracheal intubation (NTI), topical nasal vasoconstrictors are used to prevent NTI-related epistaxis (NTIRE). Since we learned that there is no significant increase in NTIRE among hypertensive patients undergoing NTI with adequate lubrication but without vasoconstrictors, we initiated this randomized controlled study to assess the necessity of vasoconstrictor use in reducing NTIRE. METHODS: Patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification 1 and normal coagulation function, planned to undergo maxillofacial surgery with NTI were enrolled. Patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to each of the treatment groups: nasal treatment using pure oxybuprocaine gel with adequate lubrication (group G) or 1% ephedrine in addition to oxybuprocaine gel with adequate lubrication (group EG). In addition, the incidence and severity of NTIRE and intubation adjustments were studied. RESULTS: A total of 844 patients, 429 and 415 (groups G and EG, respectively), were included in the analysis. No significant differences were observed in the NTIRE incidence rates in groups G (28%) and EG (27%; p = 0.75, relative risk [RR] = 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.29). No significant differences in the NTIRE incidence rates between the two nostrils were observed in both groups (group G: left, 27.9% vs. right, 28% [p = 0.98, RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.67-1.51]; group EG: left, 25.8% vs. right, 27.9% [p = 0.63, RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.72-1.73]. No significant difference was observed in the severity of NTIRE (p = 0.74). In case of difficult advancement of the endotracheal tube, NTIRE incidence was 71% vs. 12% with smooth intubation (p < 0.01, RR = 18.33, 95% CI 12.55-26.77). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Well-lubricated nasotracheal intubation does not require pretreatment with ephedrine to reduce NTIRE.

Is postoperative nasal packing after septoplasty safe? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

OBJECTIVES: To systemically review and compare post-septoplasty complications between total nasal packing and other techniques. METHODOLOGY: We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) and additional sources. The most recent search was on November 30th, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adverse events after post-septoplasty nasal packing versus other techniques were included. The outcomes were adverse events, including respiratory distress, oxygen desaturation, pain severity, bleeding, hematoma, sleep disturbance, infection, crusting, epiphora, dysphagia, perforation, adhesion, and residual septal deviation. RESULTS: There were 47 studies (4,087 participants) in this systematic review. Nasal packing was more likely to cause adverse events than other techniques. There were significant increases in respiratory distress, pain, sleep disturbance, crusting, epiphora, dysphagia, and adhesion. There were no statistically significant differences in oxygen desaturation, bleeding, hematoma, infection, perforation, and residual septal deviation. Subgroup analysis found that trans-septal suture was less likely to cause post-operative complications compared with total nasal packing. CONCLUSION: Nasal packing after septoplasty was more likely to cause adverse events, including respiratory distress, pain, sleep disturbance, crusting, epiphora, dysphagia, and adhesion. Furthermore, there were no benefits of nasal packing in preventing bleeding, hematoma, and residual septal deviation when compared with other techniques. Routine nasal packing after septoplasty should be avoided. Trans-septal suture should be considered instead.

Role of Anterior Nasal Packing in Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery: Italian Survey.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, the endoscopic endonasal approach to sellar and parasellar region tumors is a common technique in neurosurgery, and surgical nuances, complications, and management strategies are shared in a multidisciplinary setting between neurosurgeons and ear, nose, and throat surgeons. Due to the heterogeneity of its variations, the role of the anterior nasal packing in endoscopic endonasal approach to the skull base surgery (EESBS) has not yet been unanimously accepted and no consensus or guidelines on its use exist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey containing 10 questions about indications, management advantages, and pitfalls of the use of anterior nasal packing in EESBS was created by using an online open-source tool (SurveyMonkey). The questionnaire was sent to 39 Italian neurosurgical departments, which routinely adopt the endoscopic endonasal approach. RESULTS: Almost half of 39 selected centers (19; 48.7%) answered our survey. The main results can be summarized as 1) anterior nasal packing after EESBS is considered useful by 84% of participants, 2) prevention of epistaxis is the principal indication for anterior nasal packing, 3) the type of approach and skull base reconstruction influence the use of anterior nasal packing, and 4) nasal discomfort is considered the principal negative aspect of nasal packing. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified that anterior nasal packing is commonly adopted in certain conditions, namely when extensive nasal dissection is performed. Furthermore, the choice to adopt or not the anterior nasal packing should be tailored taking in account specific conditions, such as acromegaly and Cushing disease. It represents an important factor in reducing postoperative sinonasal complications of EESB.

Modified Retrograde Nasal Intubation: A New Airway Technique and Devices.

Nasotracheal intubation remains an underused but invaluable technique for securely managing the airway during oral and maxillofacial surgery. In this article, we present a modified clinical technique that allows for the potential introduction into clinical practice of 2 new airway devices: a nasal laryngeal mask airway and an interchangeable oral/nasal endotracheal tube. We hypothesize that with the use of proper techniques, these devices can add new and safer alternatives for securing an airway by the nasal route. The advantage of this novel technique is that the airway is secured by the oral route prior to performing a modified retrograde nasal intubation, eliminating the danger of profuse epistaxis precipitating a "cannot intubate, cannot ventilate" scenario. In addition, the design and materials used in the components of the devices may minimize trauma. The authors aim to inform clinicians about the indications, physical characteristics, and insertion/removal techniques related to these new devices.

Safety of (rhino)septoplasty without nasal packing in routine ENT practice.

PURPOSE: This retrospective study assesses the risks and benefits linked to the non-use of nasal packing after a (rhino)septoplasty, compared with post-operative care with anterior nasal packing such as Merocel®. METHODS: Complication rates observed during the first week after surgery were compared between groups with and without use of classic nasal packing over a large sample of 534 patients, who had undergone either a closed or open procedure, with bilateral turbinoplasty, and with or without osteotomies. Complications listed include epistaxis, haematoma, impetiginization, septal perforation, hyperalgesia, and dyspnoea. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between the group with and without packing regarding the immediate post-operative complications of epistaxis (4.4% of the cases with nasal packing versus 3% without, p = 0.918) and impetiginization (3% of the cases with nasal packing versus 4.2% without, p = 0.478). The technique used, as well as any osteotomies performed, had no impact on the results. CONCLUSION: Non-use of nasal packing after a (rhino)septoplasty is a safe alternative to classic post-operative methods. Provided that there is a rigorous surgical technique and strict clinical control, it should be used as a principal technique in any routine practice due to its safety for patients immediately post-surgery.

Development of an Outer Tube That Reduces Nasal Pain and Epistaxis during Transnasal Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Transnasal endoscopy has recently become common in Japan. Although transnasal endoscopy has many advantages, nasal pain and epistaxis are common complaints. To reduce nasal pain and epistaxis, we developed a new tube sheath system for transnasal endoscopy. This new tube sheath system (outer sheath and inner tube), called the Nasal Slider, is produced by TOP Corporation, Japan. METHODS: A tube sheath longer than the nasal concha is inserted to reduce pain along the nasal turbinate. Because the sheath is left in place, tubes can be passed through the nose multiple times without causing additional pain. A total of 34 consecutive patients (mean age 68.1 years; 22 men and 12 females) who had undergone transnasal endoscopy in the past were selected for transnasal endoscopy with the Nasal Slider. After the transnasal endoscopy was completed, patients who gave consent for use of the Nasal Slider were interviewed by using 3 questionnaires on nasal discomfort, nasal pain, and epistaxis. RESULTS: Because the transnasal endoscope passes inside the sheath, epistaxis can be prevented. Thirty of 34 selected patients underwent transnasal endoscopy using the Nasal Slider. Twenty-seven and 28 patients reported feeling less nasal discomfort and pain, respectively, with the Nasal Slider than during examinations without the Nasal Slider. No epistaxis developed in any patient examined with the Nasal Slider. CONCLUSIONS: The Nasal Slider appears to reduce nasal pain and epistaxis during transnasal endoscopy and is currently used in many hospitals in Japan.

Efficacy of nasal septal splints for preventing complications after septoplasty: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of nasal septal splints, which are used as alternatives to nasal packs for preventing complications such as synechia and maintaining septal stability after septoplasty, remains controversial. The present meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of nasal septal splints used after septoplasty. METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar databases were systematically searched until June 20, 2019. Randomized controlled trials or cohort or case-control studies comparing patients who received nasal septal splints with those who did not receive splints after septoplasty were included. Primary outcomes included postoperative pain, infection, bleeding, hematoma formation, synechia, and perforation. Random effects models were used to calculate risk differences and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Thirty-three eligible studies were included. The estimated rate of synechia was significantly lower in the splint group (0.037, 95% CI 0.024-0.056) than in the no splint group (0.087, 95% CI 0.055-0.135; P = 0.003), while visual analog scale scores for pain and the estimated rates of infection, bleeding, hematoma, and perforation were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the use of nasal septal splints as alternatives or in addition to nasal packing prevent synechia after septoplasty without increasing other complications, including pain, thus adding to evidence supporting the use of septal splints, particularly in cases where postoperative synechia is expected.