xRead - Nasal Obstruction (September 2024) Full Articles

20426984, 2021, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alr.22741 by Stanford University, Wiley Online Library on [01/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

613

Orlandi et al.

compared to Nasopore R (Continues)

Hobson 2201 2015 1 Meta-analysis 18 studies Adhesion formation Middle meatal packing does not significantly reduce the risk of middle meatal adhesions

Packing post ESS was not advantageous for

patients but absorbable

packing had less adverse effects significantly less

No significant difference for infection, adhesions or frontal ostial size;

fibrin sealant showed less crusting and

granulation tissue

in wound healing at any time point in the first 6 months after surgery

No difference in mucosal healing

Varied outcomes for pain and nasal blockage

adhesions (0% vs 14%)

Author Year LOE Study Design Materials Outcome Measure Findings Wound Healing

No significant difference

No significant difference

Synechiae Silver CMC had

Pain at removal Pain insitu

Oxidized cellulose powder vs Merocel R Nasopore R vsMerocel R Edema, crusting, Crusting, adhesions, infection

secretions, synechiae, granulation tissue, percentage

re-epithelization

Endoscopic findings of crusting, infection, adhesions, frontal

stenosis, granulation tissue

Mucosal healing

Nasal blockage

Aerosolized fibrin sealant vs Nasopore R

Yan 2198 2014 1 Meta-analysis 19 studies 11 comparing absorbable with

non-absorbable dressing

Silver CMC vs

chitin-coated gauze

Stern- Shavit 2166 2017 2 Decision analysis model

Verim 2179 2014 2 Partly blinded RCT

Akiyama 2196 2014 2 RCT single blinded

44 patients – 88 sides

Al –Shaikh 2177 2014 2 RCT

47 patients - 94 sides

56 patients – 112 sides

Jung 2165 2017 2 RCT

35 patients – 70 sides

TABLE XII-21 (Continued)