[A meta-analysis compare rapid rhino with merocel for nasal packing]

To assess the efficacy and adverse reaction of nasal packing materials Rapid Rhino and Merocel.

We searched the database PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WANFANG database on line by computer, and traced the related references. Randomized controlled trials(RCTs) of rapid rhino and merocel as nasal packing materials were included. The quality of the included documents was evaluated by the criterion of Cochrane handbook 5.1. The cochrane collaboration's Revman 5.1 software was used for data analysis.

Four RCTs involving 115 patients were identified. Meta-analyses showed that Rapid Rhino produced significantly lower pain and discomfort during insert of pack [MD = 1.37, 95% CI (0.13, 2.60), P < 0.05], whereas less pain and discomfort during removal of pack [MD = 2.88, 95% CI (2.34, 3.41), P < 0.01]. Rapid Rhino associated with a significantly slighter degree of fullness raised after insertion [MD = 1.15, 95% CI (0.75, 1.55), P < 0.01, and the same situation happened after 6 hours [MD = 1.15, 95% CI (0.75, 1.55), P < 0.01]. Rapid rhino caused to less reactionary bleeding when pack removal [MD = 0.26, 95% CI (0.12, 0.39), P < 0.01], rapid rhino was easier for the healthcare worker during insert and removal. There was no significant difference between two packs on the efficiency of hemostatic [OR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.38, 2.61), P > 0.05].

The application of Rapid Rhino caused less pain and fullness, leaded to slighter bleed than Merocel when insertion and removal. There was no significant difference between two packs on the efficiency of hemostatic when used for epistaxis or after routine nasal surgery.