ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Nasal Surgical Procedures , Sinusitis , Humans , Sinusitis/surgery , Nose , Epistaxis/prevention & control , Epistaxis/surgery , Wound Healing , Nasal Surgical Procedures/methods , Endoscopy/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The improvement of swallowing function after stroke is a significant challenge faced by patients and health care professionals. However, the current evidence synthesis of the effects of respiratory muscle training (RMT) on swallowing function is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of RMT on swallowing recovery in patients undergoing stroke. METHODS: The CKNI, WanFang Data, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies evaluating RMT interventions' effect on swallowing outcomes. Risks of bias were evaluated using the approach recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration tool and a summary of findings table was generated using the GRADE approach. Outcomes were synthesized using a random-effects meta-analysis model. RESULTS: RMT interventions reduced the risk of aspiration (SMD = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.53-1.84), the recovery process of water swallowing function (RR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.05-1.42), and the activity of the swallowing muscles (SMD = 2.91; 95% CI, 2.22-3.61). However, there was no significant effect of RMT on the functional level of oral intake (SMD = 0.70; 95% CI, -0.03 to 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: RMT can be regarded as an innovative, auxiliary means in the near future to better manage and improve swallowing function, given its improving effect on work outcomes in this review.