Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:34:31.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of Merocel nasal packs in the treatment of epistaxis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

M. B. Pringle ,
P. Beasley  and
A. P. Brightwell
M. B. Pringle*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust, Exeter, UK.
P. Beasley
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust, Exeter, UK.
A. P. Brightwell
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust, Exeter, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Mr M. Pringle, F.R.C.S. (ORL), ENT Senior Registrar, Dept of Otolaryngology, St Michaels Hospital, Southwell Street, Bristol, BS2 8EG.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the period of a year, Merocel nasal packs were used routinely as the primary form of packing in patients referred to the hospital with epistaxis that had not resolved with simple measures, and in whom packing was thought to be required. Their effectiveness was assessed. The packing was usually performed by inexperienced senior house officers. The Merocel packs successfully controlled bleeding in 91.5 per cent of the patients in whom they were used. Use of the correct insertion technique is very important but is very easy to learn and perform. The actual insertion takes only a couple of seconds. Discomfort during insertion, whilst in situ and on removal was assessed.

Merocel nasal packing is an effective form of first line treatment in patients with epistaxis.

Keywords

Epistaxis
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 110 , Issue 6 , June 1996 , pp. 543 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Breda, S. D., Jacobs, J. B., Lebowitz, A. S., Tierno, P. M. (1987) Toxic shock syndrome in nasal surgery: A physiochemical and microbiological evaluation of Merocel and Nu gauze nasal packing. Laryngoscope 97: 1388–1391.Google Scholar
Davis, J. P. (1993) Respiratory obstruction associated with the use of the Brighton epistaxis balloon. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 107: 140–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garth, R. J. N., Brightwell, A. P. (1994) A comparison of packing materials used in nasal surgery. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 108: 564–566.Google Scholar
Jacobson, J. A., Kasworm, E. M. (1986) Toxic shock syndrome after nasal surgery. Archives of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery 112 (3): 329–332.Google Scholar
McFerran, D. J., Edmonds, S. E. (1993) The use of balloon catheters in the treatment of epistaxis. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 107: 197–200.Google Scholar
McGarry, G. W., Aitken, D. (1991) Intranasal balloon catheters: How do they work? Clinical Otolaryngology 16: 388–392Google Scholar