Trial reportEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2020
Effects of glove finger- versus lidocaine-soaked nasal packing after endoscopic nasal surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNasal packing is a common but unpleasant procedure in patients who undergo endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The aim of this study was to assess whether a glove-finger pack strategy would reduce pain compared to lidocaine-soaked packs after ESS.
methodsA prospective randomized controlled trial enrolling 120 consecutive patients affected by chronic rhinosinusitis, who underwent bilateral ESS. At the end of surgery 62 subjects received 10 cm non-absorbable pack soaked with 5 mL of 2%-lidocaine solution and 58 received a 10 cm non-absorbable pack coated with a latex free glove finger soaked with saline solution. Data concerning pain were collected using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale at post-operative hours 1, 4, 8, and 16 and at pack removal (24 h ± 15 min). All post-operative analgesic rescue doses were registered. Also, bleeding was reported.
resultsThe mean VAS score during pack-removal was significantly lower in glove-finger group than in the lidocaine group (3.22 ± 2.16 vs 4.89 ± 2.90, p = 0.0012). There was no statistically significant difference between re-soaking lidocaine-soaked-packs with saline solution or lidocaine at pack removal time (p = 0.42).
conclusionGlove-finger nasal pack seems to provide better pain control after ESS, when compared with lidocaine-soaked pack, especially at pack removal time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.