Efficacy of TnR Nasal Mesh for prevention of septal perforation during septoplasty.

OBJECTIVE: Septoplasty has been reported as the most common cause of the septal perforation. The interposition of the graft materials between the flaps at the site of the tear may be helpful to decrease the likelihood of septal perforation. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of TnR Nasal Mesh on the prevention of septal perforation following septoplasty. METHODS: Among 46 patients had septal perforation after septoplasty, 35 patients were treated with TnR Nasal Mesh and 11 with autologous septal cartilage for bilateral mucosal tears at the corresponding area of the nasal septum. TnR Nasal Mesh or septal cartilage was placed between the injured mucoperichondrial flaps and confirmed in its original position at both sides under nasal endoscope. Objective endoscopic examination for septal mucosa status was evaluated between the patients who were treated with TnR Nasal Mesh or septal cartilage. RESULTS: Twenty patients (57.1%) showed complete bilateral mucosa healing and nine (25.7%) had unilateral healing after TnR Nasal Mesh insertion. However, complete bilateral and unilateral mucosa healing was observed in 4 (36.4%) and 1 patients (9.1%) treated with septal cartilage, respectively. Complete healing rate for septal perforation was significantly higher in TnR Nasal Mesh than in septal cartilage insertion (p=0.022). None of the patients showed complications or adverse reactions after TnR Nasal Mesh or septal cartilage treatment. CONCLUSION: TnR Nasal Mesh insertion after bilateral septal mucosal tear during septoplasty reduces permanent septal perforation without an apparent adverse effect. Therefore, TnR Nasal Mesh may be a safe and effective graft material for the prevention of septal perforation following septoplasty.

Application of an Intraoperative Neuromonitoring System Using a Surface Pressure Sensor in Parotid Surgery: A Rabbit Model Study.

OBJECTIVES: Facial nerve monitoring (FNM) can be used to identify the facial nerve, to obtain information regarding its course, and to evaluate its status during parotidectomy. However, there has been disagreement regarding the efficacy of FNM in reducing the incidence of facial nerve palsy during parotid surgery. Therefore, instead of using electromyography (EMG) to identify the location and state of the facial nerve, we applied an intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) system using a surface pressure sensor to detect facial muscle twitching. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using the IONM system with a surface pressure sensor to detect facial muscle twitching during parotidectomy. METHODS: We evaluated the stimulus thresholds for the detection of muscle twitching in the orbicularis oris and orbicularis oculi, as well as the amplitude and latency of EMG and the surface pressure sensor in 13 facial nerves of seven rabbits, using the same stimulus intensity. RESULTS: The surface pressure sensor detected muscle twitching in the orbicularis oris and orbicularis oculi in response to a stimulation of 0.1 mA in all 13 facial nerves. The stimulus threshold did not differ between the surface pressure sensor and EMG. CONCLUSION: The application of IONM using a surface pressure sensor during parotidectomy is noninvasive, reliable, and feasible. Therefore, the IONM system with a surface pressure sensor to measure facial muscle twitching may be an alternative to EMG for verifying the status of the facial nerve.