Advances in Absorbable Biomaterials and Nasal Packing

Department of Surgery-Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, Adelaide, SA 5011, Australia.
Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America (Impact Factor: 1.49). 10/2009; 42(5):813-28, ix. DOI: 10.1016/j.otc.2009.07.009
Source: PubMed


Absorbable biomaterials are commonly used after endoscopic sinus surgery, both for hemostatic and wound healing considerations. Although removable nasal packing is the traditional method of controlling ongoing bleeding and modulating wound healing, it is uncomfortable for patients and associated with several complications. Currently available absorbable agents frequently incite an inflammatory reaction and have been shown in animal and human trials to adversely affect the wound healing process. Newer agents offer distinct advantages because of their unique composition and rapid clearance profiles. The selection of packing material used in any given sinus procedure should be based on surgeon preference and the details of the specific case.

Download full-text


Available from: Peter-John Wormald,
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are many approaches to obtaining a workable endoscopic surgical field in sinus surgery. With extended sinus and transdural endoscopic surgery, a more rigid approach must be taken. There are 3 main factors that invariably lead to poor surgical outcomes in endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery: bleeding, inadequate access, and unidentified anatomic anomalies. Bleeding is arguably the most common reason for incomplete resection. An understanding of microvascular and macrovascular bleeding allows a more structured approach to improve the surgical field in extended endoscopic surgery. The endoscopic surgeon should always be comfortable in performing the same procedure as an open operation. However, converting or abandoning an endoscopic procedure should rarely occur because much of this decision making should take place preoperatively. Along with poor hemostasis, inadequate access is an important cause of poor outcome. Evaluation of the anatomy involved by pathology but also the anatomy that must be removed to allow adequate exposure is important. This article reviews the current techniques used to ensure optimal surgical conditions and outcomes.
    Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America 08/2010; 43(4):699-730. DOI:10.1016/j.otc.2010.04.002 · 1.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) is currently the most effective treatment for chronic sinusitis refractory to medical therapy, with symptomatic improvements reported by approximately 90% of patients. In addition to meticulous and careful surgical technique, the management of the postsurgical patient is instrumental to optimizing success following FESS. The reported complications following FESS can be classified broadly into immediate postoperative complications such as bleeding and crusting; short-term complications such as infection, synechiae formation, and turbinate lateralization; and long-term complications such as ostial stenosis, refractory disease, and disease recurrence. This article highlights currently available data for postsurgical management strategies and briefly discusses additional techniques and tools under development for managing these complications.
    Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America 08/2010; 43(4):769-79. DOI:10.1016/j.otc.2010.04.004 · 1.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to compare differences between medicated and nonmedicated Merocel middle meatal spacers (MMSs) on sinonasal mucosal healing (histopathologic and endoscopic difference), patient discomfort, and pain on removal of the MMS following functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Forty-eight patients with chronic rhinosinusitis undergoing bilateral functional endoscopic sinus surgery were enrolled in a prospective study. Patients were randomized and blinded to receive a medication-soaked Merocel MMS (either one of budesonide, gentamicin, or manuka honey) in one nostril and a nonmedicated Merocel MMS in the contralateral side. Patients were seen on postoperative day 7 and were asked to complete a visual analogue score to report the level of discomfort from nasal packing on each side. Under endoscopic visualization, biopsies of mucosa were taken from both middle meati and assessed by a blinded pathologist to determine the level of mucosal inflammation on a scale of 0 to 4. The budesonide-soaked Merocel MMS showed a trend toward reduced mucosal inflammation when compared to the control Merocel MMS, but the results were not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in the degree of discomfort and pain on the removal of the packings between the medication-soaked Merocel MMS and the nonmedicated Merocel MMS, although there was a trend toward less pain for the manuka honey-soaked Merocel MMS. Although our study failed to show any significant benefit from the addition of medication to the Merocel MMS, further studies with different compounds are recommended to determine whether a medicated MMS could indeed be a superior alternative to the standard MMS.
    Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale 02/2011; 40 Suppl 1:S14-9. DOI:10.2310/7070.2011.100099 · 0.89 Impact Factor
Show more