Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2012; 39(06): 612-617
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2012.39.6.612
Original Article

The Usefulness of Nasal Packing with Vaseline Gauze and Airway Silicone Splint after Closed Reduction of Nasal Bone Fracture

Hyo Young Kim
Department of Plastic Surgery, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Kosin University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
,
Sin Rak Kim
Department of Plastic Surgery, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Kosin University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
,
Jin Hyung Park
Department of Plastic Surgery, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Kosin University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
,
Yea Sik Han
Department of Plastic Surgery, Kosin University Gospel Hospital, Kosin University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Background Packing after closed reduction of a nasal bone fracture causes inconvenient nasal obstruction in patients. We packed the superior meatus with Vaseline gauze to support the nasal bone, and packed the middle nasal meatus with a Doyle Combo Splint consisting of an airway tube, a silastic sheet, and an expandable sponge to reduce the inconvenience. In addition, we aimed to objectively identify whether this method not only enables nasal respiration but also sufficiently supports the reduced nasal bone.

Methods Nasal ventilation was measured via spirometry 1 day before surgery and compared to 1 day after surgery. To compare support of the reduced nasal bone by the 2 methods, 2 plastic surgeons assessed the displacementon X-rays taken after the surgery and after removing the packing. The extent of nasal obstruction, dry mouth, sleep disturbance, headache, and swallowing difficulty were compared with visual analog scales (VAS) on a pre-discharge survey.

Results In the experimental group, the nasal respiration volume 1 day after surgery remained at 71.3%±6.84% on average compared to 1 day prior to surgery. Support of the reduced bone in the experimental group (2.80±0.4) was not significantly different from the control group (2.88±0.33). The VAS scores for all survey items were lower in the experimental group than in the control group, where a lower score indicated a lower level of inconvenience.

Conclusions The nasal cavity packing described here maintained objective measures of nasal respiration and supported the reduced bone similar to conventional methods. Maintaining nasal respiration reduced the inconvenience to patients, which demonstrates that this packing method is useful.

Keywords

Nasal surgical procedures - Nasal bone - Airway management

This article was presented at the 69th Congress of the Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons on November 11-13, 2011, in Seoul, Korea.




Publication History

Received: 02 July 2012

Accepted: 22 August 2012

Article published online:
01 May 2022

© 2012. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Huizing E, Pirsig W, Wentges R. et al. Unanimity and diversity in nasal surgery. Rhinol Suppl 1989; 9: 15-23
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schultz LW. Nasal splints: advantages, disadvantages and author's modifications. Am J Surg 1957; 94: 897-899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rhee SC, Kim JS. A simple method of fabricating nasal packing armed with ventilation tube. J Craniofac Surg 2008; 19: 1385-1386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jung YJ, Choi YW, Nam SH. et al. The usefulness of airway tube Merocel(R) on treatment of nasal bone fracture. J Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofac Assoc 2009; 10: 14-18
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Son KM, Yang JY, Kim GB. et al. The effect of nasal packing with rolled silastic sheet after closed reduction of nasal bone fracture. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 38: 602-608
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Kim JY, Kim YH. The usefulness of a bronchodilator after the closed reduction of nasal bone fracture. J Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofac Assoc 2011; 12: 22-27
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Fairbanks DN. Complications of nasal packing. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986; 94: 412-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ogretmenoglu O, Yilmaz T, Rahimi K. et al. The effect on arterial blood gases and heart rate of bilateral nasal packing. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2002; 259: 63-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Johannessen N, Jensen PF, Kristensen S. et al. Nasal packing and nocturnal oxygen desaturation. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1992; 492: 6-8
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Park S, Iwasaki Y. Intranasal Kirschner wire splinting of nasal fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106: 952-953
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Burm JS, Oh SJ. Indirect open reduction through intercartilaginous incision and intranasal Kirschner wire splinting of comminuted nasal fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102: 342-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Garth RJ, Brightwell AP. A comparison of packing materials used in nasal surgery. J Laryngol Otol 1994; 108: 564-566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ruddy J, Brain D, Sudesh RR. et al. A prospective trial of Merocel packs. Rhinology 1991; 29: 281-285
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Acioglu E, Edizer DT, Yigit O. et al. Nasal septal packing: which one?. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 269: 1777-1781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kang SJ, Kim JW. Proposed method for closed reduction of impacted nasal bone fractures using a Kirschner wire and a C-arm. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 70: 1393-1397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Han DS, Han YS, Park JH. A new approach to the treatment of nasal bone fracture: the clinical usefulness of closed reduction using a C-arm. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64: 937-943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar