ArticleCureus2026
A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes of Different Nasal Packs in Nasal Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNasal obstruction is a common symptom in otorhinolaryngology, often necessitating surgical interventions that significantly impact patient quality of life. Various nasal packing materials are available, each with distinct properties influencing patient comfort and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate patient satisfaction and clinical effectiveness of three nasal packing materials, VelNez, Merocel, and Rapid Rhino nasastent, under standard surgical conditions.
methodsA prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label, three-arm, single-center study was conducted at a tertiary medical institute after obtaining institutional ethics committee approval and registration in a national clinical trial registry. Thirty patients (18-70 years) undergoing nasal surgery were randomized into three groups: VelNez (n=10), Rapid Rhino nasastent (n=10), and Merocel (n=10). Patients were followed for 21±3 days with two follow-up visits. Outcomes assessed included hemostasis, patient comfort, and adverse events. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Student's t-test (p ≤ 0.05).
resultsAll participants completed the study, achieving effective hemostasis. Time to hemostasis was shortest with VelNez (3.9±0.92 min) compared to Rapid Rhino (9.6±0.60 min) and Merocel (9.2±0.78 min) (
conclusionAll three nasal packs were safe and effective. VelNez and Rapid Rhino nasastent, due to their fragmentable nature, offered improved patient comfort compared to Merocel, with VelNez showing the fastest dissolution.
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.