ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:Rena gel and expansive sponge are two kinds of nasal packing materials, but there is stil a lack of comprehensive analysis on their filing effects. OBJECTIVE:To compare the therapeutic efficacy of Rena gel and expansive sponge on nasal hemorrhage and postoperative nasal packing as wel as adverse reactions. METHODS: A computer-based search of CBM, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library was performed for articles addressing randomized controled trials of Rena gel and expansive sponge as filing materials. The keywords were “Rena gel, randomized controled, expansive sponge” in Chinese and English, respectively. Then, aching feeling during filing and removal, sweling pain, bleeding, and bleeding control were compared and analyzed through a Meta-analysis. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:There were four randomized controled trials, involving 115 patients. The severity of pain was higher in the expansive sponge group than the Rena gel group when the filing materials were placed or removed (P 0.05). The severity of sweling pain was higher in the expansive sponge group than the Rena gel group at 1 and 6 hours after filing (P 0.05). In addition, it was more difficult to fil or remove the expansive sponge from the nasal cavity (P < 0.05). These findings indicate that the Rena gel is superior to the expansive sponge in terms of pain, sweling pain, and bleeding when filing or removing the materials. But there is no difference in bleeding control between the two kinds of filing materials.