There is no consensus about nasal packing application in rhinoplasty operations.The purpose of this study is to compare the complications in nasal packing and nonpacking groups on rhinoplasty patients
Methods/Technique:
A retrospective study which was performed at Gazi University Hospital in Ankara, Turkey included n: 1041 operated rhinoplasty cases amongst May/2005 – June/2008. Septoplasty applied to 791 (%76) patient and 250 (%24) patient operated without septoplasty. This 791 septoplasty applied patients divided two subgruops; after completion of surgery suturing nasal package performed group n:510 (%49) and Merocel® anterior nasal packing group n:281 (%27) which removed postoperative third day.
Results/Complications:
Totally there was 3 (%0.28) septal perforation, 4 (%0.38) local infection, 25 (%2.4) mucosal synechia occured and any septal hematoma and postoperative excessive bleeding observed early postoperative period.1 (%0.35) perforation, 2 (%0.7) infection, 5 (%1.7) synechia established in the Merocel® anterior nasal packing group n:281 (%27). 2 (%0.25) perforation, 2 (%0.25) infection 15 (%1.9) synechia established in suturing nasal package group n:510 (%49). Only 5 (%0.6) synechia established in rhinoplasty without septoplasty group n:250 (%24)
Conclusion:
There is no statistically significant difference among septal perforation,infection and synechia occurence between nasal packing and nonpacking groups after aesthetic rhinoplasty. In Septoplasty applied group no statistically significant difference for complications between suturing nasal package and Merocel® anterior nasal packing groups. Merocel® nasal packing had following disadvantages: patient discomfort, had one more hospital visit for package remove, bleeding after package remove. Therefore, suturing nasal package after rhinoplasty with septoplasty eliminates disadvantages of anterior nasal packing