Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T15:44:41.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of side effects and patient perceptions towards Rapid Rhino and Merocel packs in epistaxis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2024

Bassem Mettias Open the ORCID record for Bassem Mettias [Opens in a new window] ,
Chiraag Thakrar Karia ,
Esmee Irvine  and
Peter Conboy
Bassem Mettias*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Chiraag Thakrar Karia
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Esmee Irvine
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Peter Conboy
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK
*
Corresponding author: Bassem Mettias; Email: Bassemadel@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Non-dissolvable nasal packs (Rapid Rhino and Merocel) are widely used in secondary healthcare centres for the control of epistaxis, with some side effects.

Methods

A prospective, observational cohort study was conducted of adults who required Rapid Rhino or Merocel packing for acute epistaxis management in a large healthcare centre between March 2020 and 2021. A validated modified version of the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test was used.

Results

A total of 80 adults requiring non-dissolvable packs were recruited. Seventy per cent of patients had Rapid Rhino packs inserted. Embarrassment was greater in patients who used Rapid Rhino than Merocel. Merocel packs had a significantly higher mean pain score on removal compared to Rapid Rhino. There was no correlation between rebleed rate and type of nasal pack used.

Conclusion

Non-dissolvable Rapid Rhino and Merocel nasal packs have similar efficacy in controlling epistaxis. Rapid Rhino packs are more embarrassing for patients in comparison to Merocel packs, but are less painful to remove.

Keywords

Epistaxistamponssurgicalpatient outcome assessmentquality of life
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 138 , Issue 6 , June 2024 , pp. 642 - 646
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Bassem Mettias takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Petruson, B, Rudin, R. The frequency of epistaxis in a male population sample. Rhinology 1975;13:129–33Google Scholar
Ellis, M, Hall, A, Hardman, J, Mehta, N, Nankiwell, P, Sharma, N et al. The British Rhinological Society multidisciplinary consensus recommendations on the hospital management of epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 2017;131:1142–56Google Scholar
National ENT Trainee Research Network (Integrate). Epistaxis 2016: national audit of management. J Laryngol Otol 2017;131:1131–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesham, A, Ghali, A. Rapid Rhino versus Merocel nasal packs in septal surgery. J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:1244–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moumoulidis, I, Draper, MR, Patel, H, Jani, P, Price, T. A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing Merocel and Rapid Rhino nasal tampons in the treatment of epistaxis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:719–2210.1007/s00405-006-0047-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Badran, K, Malik, TH, Belloso, A, Timms, MS. Randomized controlled trial comparing Merocel® and Rapid-Rhino® packing in the management of anterior epistaxis. Clin Otolaryngol 2005;30:333–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iqbal, IZ, Jones, GH, Dawe, N, Mamais, C, Smith, ME, Williams, RJ et al. Intranasal packs and haemostatic agents for the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review. J Laryngol Otol 2017;131:1065–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, JL, Hubbard, MA, Huyett, P, Patrie, JT, Borish, L, Payne, SC. Sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22): a predictor of postsurgical improvement in patients with chronic sinusitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2013;111:246–51.e210.1016/j.anai.2013.06.033CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Titirungruang, CK, Charakorn, N, Chaitusaney, B, Hirunwiwatkul, P. Is postoperative nasal packing after septoplasty safe? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Rhinology 2021;59:340–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, JS, Kwon, SH. Is nonabsorbable nasal packing after septoplasty essential? A meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2017;127:1026–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, DL, Baker, CM. Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs 1988;14:9–17Google ScholarPubMed
Integrate (UK ENT Trainee Research Network). Admission avoidance in acute epistaxis: a prospective national audit during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Otolaryngol 2021;46:577–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehta, N, Stevens, K, Smith, ME, Williams, RJ, Ellis, M, Hardman, JC et al. National prospective observational study of inpatient management of adults with epistaxis - a National Trainee Research Collaborative delivered investigation. Rhinology 2019;57:180–9Google Scholar