No abstract

The present study aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of absorbable packing alone, non-absorbable packing alone, and absorbable versus non-absorbable packing in the postoperative care of FESS patients, regarding bleeding control, adhesion formation, wound healing, and overall patient comfort. Systematic literature review in Medline and other database sources until July 2013, and critical analysis of pooled data were conducted. Blinded prospective randomized control trials, prospective, and retrospective comparative studies were included in study selection. The total number of analyzed studies was 19. Placing packs in the middle meatus after endoscopic procedures does not seem to be harmful for postoperative patient care. Regarding the postoperative bleeding rate, absorbable packing is not superior to no postoperative packing (strength of recommendation A). Comparing absorbable to non-absorbable packing, the former one seems slightly more effective than the latter in the aforementioned domain (strength of recommendation C). Absorbable packing was also found more effective than non-absorbable packing as a means of reducing the postoperative adhesion rate (strength of recommendation B), and more effective in comparison with not placing any packing material at all (strength of recommendation C). Non-absorbable packing also proves more effective than no postoperative packing in preventing the appearance of such adhesions (strength of recommendation A). Absorbable packing is also more comfortable compared to non-absorbable materials (strength of recommendation A), or no postoperative packing in FESS patients (strength of recommendation B). The comparative analysis between the different packing modalities performed in the present study may help surgeons design a more individualized postoperative patient care.