Does Length Matter? A Comparison of Rapid Rhino™ Nasal Packings for the Treatment of Epistaxis

Abstract

BackgroundEpistaxis is the most common otorhinolaryngologic emergency around the world. A broad variety of treatment options is available; ranging from conservative measures such as cauterization and nasal packings to surgery. For posterior epistaxis, nasal packings are usually the preferred initial treatment method. There are 2 different models of the widely used Rapid Rhino™ packing available at our department; the 7.5 cm, single-lumen, and the 9 cm, double-lumen variant with 2 separately inflatable balloons. Identifying whether one packing is superior to the other will help with the choice of the best possible treatment.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to determine whether the new, double-lumen model had advantages compared to its shorter counterpart.MethodsAll patients treated with Rapid Rhino™ packings for spontaneous epistaxis between December 2005 and October 2017 were analyzed for various parameters such as recurrence rates, hospitalization rate, and duration of in-patient stay. The groups were divided by model and whether patients were treated before or after the introduction of the double-lumen version (December 2010).ResultsA total of 865 cases of patients treated with Rapid Rhino™ packs were analyzed. Before December 2010, 210 of 372 cases (56%) were hospitalized, whereas afterwards it was only 48% (235/493; P = .01). The duration of the in-patient stay decreased from 3.7 to 3.1 days ( P < .01). There was no difference in recurrence rates.ConclusionThe introduction of the double-lumen, 9 cm Rapid Rhino™ packing has led to a decrease of in-patient time and to less hospitalizations. Therefore, it should be preferred to the shorter, single-lumen model in the treatment of posterior epistaxis.