권호기사보기
| 기사명 | 저자명 | 페이지 | 원문 | 기사목차 |
|---|
결과 내 검색
동의어 포함
Purpose: Nasal bone fracture is the most common type of facial bone fracture and most of nasal bone fracture is combined with septal fracture frequently. Nasal septum is important to support the distal nose and to maintain the nasal airway. But nasal septal fractures are usually unrecognized and untreated at the time of operation. Recently, various materials were using for nasal packing after closed reduction, however these materials are not focused on the correction of nasal bone and nasal septal fracture and many patients are suffered from nasal packing materials. Thus, the purpose of this study is to compare routine packing materials and rolled silastic sheet with respect to postoperative effect of correction of nasal bone fracture and discomfort of nasal packing materials.
Methods: We examined 320 patients treated nasal bone fracture from January 2008 to December 2010. For Group I(n=92), Merocel^ⓡ was used for nasal packing, for Group II(n=152) vaseline gauze was used, and Rolled silastic sheet(RSS) with vaseline gauze packing(VGP) was used for Group III(n=76). Under the general anesthesia, all patients were operated by closed reduction and nasal packing was done using three kinds of packing materials. At the time of postoperative 7 days, packing material was removed and studied for pt’s satisfaction and postop. complications.
Results: In patients with RSS with VGP, the complaints (nasal obstruction, foreign compressive sensation and discomfort during food ingestion) of keeping the nasal packing were decreased(p<0.05) and the postoperative complication(deviation) were decreased comparing to vaseline gauze packing and Merocel^ⓡ packing, however, these differences were not statistically significant(p>0.05).
Conclusion: Postoperative nasal packing with RSS with VGP was more comfortable to the patients and it was more effective method to correct the nasal bone fracture and nasal septal fracture.| 번호 | 참고문헌 | 국회도서관 소장유무 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Management of nasal fractures. ![]() |
미소장 |
| 2 | A prospective trial of Merocel packs. ![]() |
미소장 |
| 3 | Combine Marocel and Gelfilm as a nasal pack. ![]() |
미소장 |
| 4 | Nasal splints: Advantages, disadvantages and author's modifications ![]() |
미소장 |
| 5 | Korean Society of Plastic Surgery: Facial Bone Fracture. Textbook of Plastic Surgery. 2nd ed, Seoul, Koonja Co., 2009, p 276 | 미소장 |
| 6 | McCarthy JG: Plastic surgery. 1st ed, Philadelphia, Saunders, 1990, p 987 | 미소장 |
| 7 | Ventilating Tube Method using IV Line During Closed Reduction of Nasal Bone Fracture ![]() |
미소장 |
| 8 | Treatment of Nasal Bone Fracture with Reverse U-Shaped Silicone Sheet | 소장 |
| 9 | Facial fractures – association with ocular injuries: A 13-year review of one practice in a tertiary care centre ![]() |
미소장 |
| 10 | Septal fracture in simple nasal bone fracture. ![]() |
미소장 |
| 11 | Analysis of nasal bone fractures; a six-year study of 503 patients. ![]() |
미소장 |
*표시는 필수 입력사항입니다.
| 전화번호 |
|---|
| 기사명 | 저자명 | 페이지 | 원문 | 기사목차 |
|---|
| 번호 | 발행일자 | 권호명 | 제본정보 | 자료실 | 원문 | 신청 페이지 |
|---|
도서위치안내: / 서가번호:
우편복사 목록담기를 완료하였습니다.
*표시는 필수 입력사항입니다.
저장 되었습니다.