Comparison of Absorbable Packing versus No Packing in Wound Healing after Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

Nasal packing after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to compare absorbable packing versus no packing in wound healing after ESS for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. Data Source: English electronic databases, including Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed, were searched, and only randomized controlled trials were included. Methods: The outcome measures were the presence of synechiae/adhesion formation, mucosal edema, crusting, granulation formation, and infection. The McNemar’s test was used for pooled analysis. Results: Four studies with 148 participants were included. The pooled analysis showed that absorbable packing may offer benefit in reducing adhesion at 6–8 weeks (odds ratio [OR]: 0.3864; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.2136–0.7235) and 12 weeks (OR: 0.2396, 95% CI: 0.08267–0.7709) postoperatively compared with no packing. There was no significant difference between the packed and the unpacked side at 2, 6–8, and 12 weeks after ESS in terms of presence of crusting, edema, and granulation formation. Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to suggest that absorbable packing after ESS does not increase mucosal edema, granulation formation, and infection. However, the absorbable packing may be more effective than no packing for the prevention of mucosal adhesion after ESS. The use of absorbable nasal packing after ESS is recommended when used to reduce postoperative mucosal adhesion. More research in this area is clearly needed.