Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 275, Issue 7, pp 1803–1809 | Cite as

Nasal silicone splints and quilting sutures using a septum stitch device following septoplasty: a prospective comparative study

  • Akihito KubokiEmail author
  • Shun Kikuchi
  • Daiya Asaka
  • Nobuto Onda
  • Tsuguhisa Nakayama
  • Hiromi Kojima
  • Nobuyoshi Otori
Rhinology

Abstract

Purpose

Although nasal splints and trans-septal sutures are preferred for septal closure following septoplasty, quilting sutures, also known as continuous mattress sutures, are technically challenging and thus time consuming. Recently, the utility of a novel stitch device was demonstrated for quilting sutures; however, whether it contributes to the technical solution and time management of septal sutures remains unclear. This study aims to quantify the time and cost of septal closure following septoplasty by comparing nasal splints with quilting sutures using the septum stitch device.

Methods

We prospectively examined 23 patients who underwent septoplasty and assigned them to the following two groups: group 1, underwent the quilting suture for septal closure following septoplasty; group 2 underwent the nasal silicone splint method. We recorded the total operation time and surgical time for septal closure. Furthermore, we evaluated postoperative symptoms with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and compared the complication rate.

Results

We observed no significant difference in the average of total operating time (P = 0.641) and the surgical time for septal closure (P = 0.886). Among postoperative symptoms, only nasal bleeding was significantly worse in group 1 on postoperative day 1 (P = 0.023). In addition, the occurrence of postoperative complications was insignificant between both groups.

Conclusions

The septum stitch facilitated safe and easy quilting suturing without significant increase of operation time.

Keywords

Septoplasty Quilting suture Trans-septal suture Nasal splint Operative time Complications 

Notes

Acknowledgements

There are no financial interests to disclose. The picture used in Fig. 1 in this article was offered by Mani, Inc. Tochigi, Japan.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest and sources of funding to declare.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the University Hospital Ethics Committee (The Jikei University School of Medicine, Reference number 25-320 7455).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants before enrollment of this study.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (WMV 74068 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Banglawala SM, Gill M, Sommer DD, Psaltis A, Schlosser R, Gupta M (2013) Is nasal packing necessary after septoplasty? A meta-analysis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 3:418–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim JS, Kwon SH (2017) Is nonabsorbable nasal packing after septoplasty essential? A meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 127:1026–1031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deniz M, Ciftçi Z, Işık A, Demirel OB, Gültekin E (2014) The impact of different nasal packings on postoperative complications. Am J Otolaryngol 35:554–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Özkırış M, Kapusuz Z, Saydam L (2013) Comparison of nasal packs with transseptal suturing after nasal septal surgery. Am J Otolaryngol 34:308–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kayahan B, Ozer S, Suslu AE, Ogretmenoglu O, Onerci M (2017) The comparison of the quality of life and intranasal edema between the patients with or without nasal packing after septoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:1551–1555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cayonu M, Acar A, Horasanlı E, Altundag A, Salihoglu M (2014) Comparison of totally occlusive nasal pack, internal nasal splint, and transseptal suture technique after septoplasty in terms of immediate respiratory distress related to anesthesia and surgical complications. Acta Otolaryngol 134:390–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Asaka D, Yoshikawa M, Okushi T, Nakayama T, Matsuwaki Y, Otori N, Moriyama H (2012) Nasal splinting using silicone plates without gauze packing following septoplasty combined with inferior turbinate surgery. Auris Nasus Larynx 39:53–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wadhera R, Zafar N, Gulati SP, Kalra V, Ghai A (2014) Comparative study of intranasal septal splints and nasal packs in patients undergoing nasal septal surgery. Ear Nose Throat J 93:396–408PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    San T, Ertugay OC, Catli T, Acar M, Ertugay CK, Dag I, Cingi C (2015) Effects of surfactant on biofilm formation on silicone nasal splints. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272:345–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quinn JG, Bonaparte JP, Kilty SJ (2013) Postoperative management in the prevention of complications after septoplasty: a systematic review. Laryngoscope 123:1328–1333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang WW, Dong BC (2017) Comparison on effectiveness of trans-septal suturing versus nasal packing after septoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:3915–3925CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuboki A, Yanagi K, Nakayama T, Haruna S (2015) Simple suturing of the nasal septum using the Maniceps septum stitch device. J Laryngol Otol 129:591–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee IN, Vukovic L (1988) Hemostatic suture for septoplasty: how we do it. J Otolaryngol 17:54–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hari C, Marnane C, Wormald PJ (2008) Quilting sutures for nasal septum. J Laryngol Otol 122:522–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sessions RB (1984) Membrane approximation by continuous mattress sutures following septoplasty. Laryngoscope 94:702–703CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Awan MS, Iqbal M (2008) Nasal packing after septoplasty: a randomized comparison of packing versus no packing in 88 patients. Ear Nose Throat J 87:624–627PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Günaydın R, Aygenc E, Karakullukcu S, Fidan F, Celikkanat S (2011) Nasal packing and transseptal suturing techniques: surgical and anaesthetic perspectives. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 268:1151–1156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cukurova I, Cetinkaya EA, Mercan GC, Demirhan E, Gumussoy M (2012) Retrospective analysis of 697 septoplasty surgery cases: packing versus trans-septal suturing method. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 32:111–114PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Korkut AY, Teker AM, Eren SB, Gedikli O, Askiner O (2010) A randomised prospective trial of trans-septal suturing using a novel device versus nasal packing for septoplasty. Rhinology 48:179–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang TW, Cheng PW (2006) Changes in nasal resistance and quality of life after endoscopic microdebrider-assisted inferior turbinoplasty in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132:990–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kula M, Yuce I, Unlu Y, Tutus A, Cagli S, Ketenci I (2010) Effect of nasal packing and haemostatic septal suture on mucociliary activity after septoplasty: an assessment by rhinoscintigraphy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267:541–546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Turhan M, Bostancı A, Akdag M, Dinc O (2013) A comparison of the effects of packing or transseptal suture on polysomnographic parameters in septoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270:1339–1344CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tami TA, Kuppersmith RB, Atkins J (2010) A clinical evaluation of bioresorbable staples for mucoperichondrial flap coaptation in septoplasty. Am J Rhinol Allergy 24:137–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yildirim G, Cingi C, Kaya E (2013) Septal stapler use during septum surgery. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270:939–943CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sowerby LJ, Wright ED (2013) A comparison of septal stapler to suture closure in septoplasty: a prospective, randomized trial evaluating the effect on operative time. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 3:911–914CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyThe Jikei University School of MedicineTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations