Title: A Comparison of Conventional Nasal Pack with Merocel Nasal Pack in the Management of Epistaxis
Authors: Dr V.U.Shanmugam, Dr PremNivas, Dr Balaji Swaminathan, Dr Ruta Shanmugan, Dr Suji
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v7i10.156
Abstract
Nasal bleeding is extremely common and affects all age group.5 to 10% of population experiences every year. Most of the epistaxis ceases spontaneously and only a few would require nasal packing. Nasal Packs had been used routinely for refractory epistaxis. Conventional gauze pack and Merocel nasal pack are the common pack used in refractory anterior epistaxis.
Aim: To study the effectiveness of conventional nasal pack with merocel nasal pack in terms of discomfort experienced by the patient during pack insertion and pack removal, blood pressure changes, need for repacking after removal of pack and nasal mucosal injury.
Methods: Study is based on analysis of 32 patients who had severe epistaxis which was refractory to digital pressure and medical management in the period from October 2017 to October 2019 at Rajah Muthiah Medical College, Chidambaram.32 patients were divided into group A and group B containing 16 patients in each group. Group A was packed with conventional gauze pack soaked in Vaseline or Bismuth Iodoform Paraffin Paste. Group B was packed with Merocel Nasal Tampon pack.
Results: The mean discomfort score during pack insertion using visual analog score was higher 7.1 with group A than 3.5 with group B. Similarly, the mean discomfort score during pack removal was more with conventional nasal gauze (3.75) than merocel nasal pack (1.25). Blood Pressure was found to be increased after pack insertion with 12 mmhg in group A and 4mm Hg in group B. However, it was not statistically significant. Incidence of repacking was more with merocel pack. 1 patient required repacking in conventional nasal pack and three patient with merocel pack. The mean mucosal scoring was more with conventional nasal pack than merocel which was statistically significant on day 1. There was no significant mucosal injury between 2 group on day 7 and 14.
Conclusion: Merocel nasal pack is a favourable technique in view of ease of insertion, lesser insertion time and short learning curve. However, Conventional nasal pack is the time tested technique with less incidence of repacking, hence more acceptable to the patient.
Keywords: Conventional gauze pack, Merocal Nasal Tampon pack, Epistaxis.
References
- Saunders W.H: “Epistaxis” in PAPARELLA and Shumrick text book of otolaryngology. 48 – 62; 1973.
- Possamai V J. One size fits all? A novel application of adult Merocel epistaxis pack. Joural of Otolaryngology and Otology 2007; 121:299.
- Shaheen O.H: “Epistaxis” in Scott – Brown’s otolaryngology, volume 4, 6th edition, 278 – 282; 1987.
- Lund V, Kennedy D. Quantification for staging sinusitis. The Staging and Therapy group. The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. 1995Oct; 167:17-21.
- Shivakumar KL.A comparison between Conventional nasal pack and Merocel packing in Management of epistaxis. International Journal of General Medicine and Pharmacy. 2014 Sept; 3(5):127-30
- Dutta S, Mukherjee A, Saha J, Biswas G, Haldar D, Sen I et al. Modified Technique of Anterior Nasal Packing: A Comparative Study Report. Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery. 2011; 64(4):341-345
- Mamta, Raman W. To compare the effects of conventional nasal packing and Packing with Merocel and Merocel with Ventilation Tube after International Journal of Enchanced Research in Medicines & Dental Care. 2017;4(6).
- Sudhir MN, Mohan A. Anterior nasal packing in nasal surgeries and epistaxis: Advantages of Nasal Tampon over Conventional framycetin ribbon packs, Otolaryngology Online Journal, 2014; 4(1).
- Naik S, Appaji M, Ravishankar S, Goutham Mk, Annapurna SM, Devi WP, et al. Anterior nasal packing in nasal surgeries and epistaxis: advantage of nasal tampon over conventional framycetin ribbon packs. Otolaryngology online journal. 2014; 4(1):1-18.