ArticleCureus2026
A Randomized Clinical Study Comparing Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes Associated With Two Nasal Packs Used 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. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two biodegradable nasal packs VelNez® (Datt Mediproducts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India) and NasoPore® (Polyganics B.V., Groningen, the Netherlands) in patients undergoing nasal surgery, with the primary objective of assessing haemorrhage control time and biodegradability. Methods In this prospective, open-label, single-centre, randomized clinical trial, 20 patients undergoing nasal surgery were randomly assigned to receive either VelNez® (n=10) or NasoPore® (n=10). Primary endpoints were haemorrhage control time and nasal pack fragmentation at seven days post-surgery. Secondary endpoints included patient comfort, pain scores, endoscopic findings, and adverse events. Statistical analyses were conducted using t-tests and chi-squared tests with significance set at p<0.05. Results VelNez® showed significantly faster haemorrhage control (mean 2.6 minutes) compared to NasoPore® (mean 3.8 minutes; p=0.033). Fragmentation analysis revealed VelNez® had significantly less residue after seven days (p<0.01), indicating better biodegradability. Patients treated with VelNez® reported lower pain scores during surgery, discharge, and first follow-up (p<0.05) and experienced less nasal obstruction and discharge. Endoscopic examination showed less postoperative edema in the VelNez® group at seven days (p=0.019). No significant infections, allergic reactions, and fibrosis were observed in either group. Conclusion The VelNez® nasal pack demonstrated improved haemorrhage control, biodegradability, and patient comfort compared to NasoPore® in nasal surgery. Its use may improve postoperative outcomes, reduce patient discomfort, and lower health risks associated with nasal packing, contributing positively to public health by enhancing recovery and reducing complications.
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.