Skip to main content
Log in

A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing Merocel and Rapid Rhino nasal tampons in the treatment of epistaxis

  • Rhinology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Head & Neck Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A prospective study was performed to compare the efficacy and patient tolerance of Merocel® and Rapid Rhino® nasal tampons in the treatment of epistaxis. A total of 42 patients were studied. There was no significant difference between the two types of pack in efficacy or patient discomfort with pack in situ. Rapid Rhino® produced significantly lower scores for subjective patient discomfort during insertion and removal of pack.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Small M, Maran AGD (1984) Epistaxis and arterial ligation. J Laryngol Otol 98:281–284

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Shaheen OH (1967) Epistaxis in the middle-aged and elderly. Masters of Surgery thesis, University of London

  3. Petruson B, Rudin R (1975) The frequency of epistaxis in a male population sample. Rhinology 13:129–133

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Stell PM (1977) Epistaxis. Clin Otolaryngol 2:263–272

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pringle MB, Beasley P, Brightwell AP (1996) The use of Merocel nasal packs in the treatment of epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 110:543–546

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Corbridge RJ, Djazaeri B, Hellier WPL, Hadley J (1995) A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing the use of Merocel nasal tampons and BIPP in the control of acute epistaxis. Clin Otolaryngol 20:305–307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shinkwin CA, Beasley N, Simo R, Rushton L, Jones NS (1996) Evaluation of Surgicel Nu-Knit, Merocel and Vasolene gauze nasal packs: a randomised trial. Rhinology 34:41–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Walton SL (1997) Post extubation foreign body aspiration; a case report. AANA J 65:147–149

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hashmi SM, Gopaul SR, Prinsley PR, Sansom JR (2004) Swallowed nasal pack: a rare but serious complication of the management of epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 118:372–373

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McGlashan JA, Walsh R, Dauod A, Vowles A, Gleeson MJ (1992) A comparative study of calcium alginate (Kaltostat) and bismuth tribromophenate (Xeroform) packing in the management of epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 106:1067–1071

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ruddy J, Brain D, Sudesh RR, Anand VT (1991) A prospective trial of Merocel packs. Rhinology 29:281–285

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Arya AK, Butt O, Nigam A (2003) Double-blind randomised controlled trial comparing Merocel with Rapid Rhino nasal packs after routine nasal surgery. Rhinology 41:241–243

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Garth RJN, Brightwell AP (1994) A comparison of packing materials used in nasal surgery. J Laryngol Otol 108:564–566

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioannis Moumoulidis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moumoulidis, I., Draper, M.R., Patel, H. et al. A prospective randomised controlled trial comparing Merocel and Rapid Rhino nasal tampons in the treatment of epistaxis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 263, 719–722 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-006-0047-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-006-0047-5

Keywords

Navigation