Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2020; 47(01): 15-19
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2019.00913
Original Article

Effect of lidocaine on pain caused by nasal pack removal after closed reduction of nasal bone fractures

Ji Yoon Sung 
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
,
Kyung Dong Kang 
Gangnam Dr. Woo Plastic Surgery Clinic, Gimhae, Korea
,
Min Wook Kim 
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
,
Joo Hyoung Kim 
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Background Pain caused by nasal pack removal after closed reduction of nasal bone fractures is a common problem. This study investigated the effect of infiltrating lidocaine into nasal packs on the pain caused by pack removal after closed reduction of nasal bone fractures.

Methods Seventy-five patients who underwent closed reduction of nasal bone fractures between March 2016 and March 2018 were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Merocel (hydroxylated polyvinyl acetate) packs were applied bilaterally and retained for 5 days. Twenty minutes before removal, both packs were rehydrated with 6 mL of 2% lidocaine in 26 patients and with 6 mL of saline in 24 patients; the packs were not rehydrated in 25 patients. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain on removal were recorded.

Results The mean VAS score was 5.3±2.0 in all patients, 3.8±1.5 in the lidocaine group, 5.8±1.4 in the saline group, and 6.3±2.1 in the non-rehydrated group. There was a significant difference in the pain score between the lidocaine and saline groups (P<0.001) but not between the saline and non-rehydrated groups (P=0.186).

Conclusions Infiltration of lidocaine into Merocel packs reduced the pain caused by pack removal after closed reduction of nasal bone fractures.

Keywords

Analgesic - Lidocaine - Nasal surgical procedures - Nasal bone

This article was presented at the PRS Korea 2017 on November 10-12, 2017, in Seoul, Korea.




Publication History

Received: 18 July 2019

Accepted: 22 November 2019

Article published online:
25 March 2022

© 2020. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Ruddy J, Brain D, Sudesh RR. et al. A prospective trial of Merocel packs. Rhinology 1991; 29: 281-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hwang JH, Liu CM, Liu TC. et al. Sphenopalatine ganglion block before removal of nasal packing. Laryngoscope 2003; 113: 1423-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Choi DS, Lee JW, Yang JD. et al. Minimal packing duration in close reduction for nasal bone frcture treatment. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2015; 49: 275-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Yilmazer C, Sener M, Yilmaz I. et al. Pre-emptive analgesia for removal of nasal packing: a double-blind placebo controlled study. Auris Nasus Larynx 2007; 34: 471-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lavy JA, Small GV, Jay N. et al. A prospective randomized controlled study of 4% lignocaine solution in Merocel nasal pack removal. Rhinology 1996; 34: 219-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Durvasula VS, Brewis C, Syeda F. et al. Lignocaine as a topical analgesia for post-operative nasal pack removal: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. J Laryngol Otol 2005; 119: 348-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lachanas VA, Karatzias GT, Pinakas VG. et al. The use of tetracaine 0.25% solution in nasal packing removal. Am J Rhinol 2006; 20: 483-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sahin C, Aras HI. Effect on patient anxiety of lidocaine infiltration into nasal packing after septoplasty: prospective, controlled study. J Laryngol Otol 2015; 129: 784-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ozkiris M, Kapusuz Z, Saydam L. Comparison of ropivacaine, bupivacaine and lidocaine in the management of post-tonsillectomy pain. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 76: 1831-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ozkiris M, Aydin R, Gencer ZK. et al. Comparison of topical anesthetic effects of lidocaine, prilocaine, ropivacaine, and bupivacaine in transnasal fiberoptic nasopharyngolaryngoscopy. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2014; 28: e141-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Melby MJ, Raehl CL, Kreul JF. Pharmacokinetics of endotracheally administered lidocaine. Clin Pharm 1986; 5: 228-31
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Loukides S, Katsoulis K, Tsarpalis K. et al. Serum concentrations of lignocaine before, during and after fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Respiration 2000; 67: 13-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 List T, Mojir K, Svensson P. et al. A new protocol to evaluate the effect of topical anesthesia. Anesth Prog 2014; 61: 135-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar