A study to determine the benefits of bilateral versus unilateral nasal packing with Rapid Rhino^® packs

There is little evidence to suggest that bilateral nasal packing increases intra-nasal pressures compared to a single pack (or is well tolerated) for uncontrolled unilateral epistaxis, but it is often performed and justified on those grounds. 15 volunteers were recruited according to strict criteria. Rapid Rhino^® 5.5 cm anterior packs were inserted bilaterally following topical nasal preparation with co-phenylcaine. The first pack was inflated to a pre-determined pressure. The contralateral pack was inflated to match, and any intra-nasal pressure change on the first side was measured. The subject’s level of discomfort was scored on a visual analogue scale. This procedure was repeated at incremental pressures. Higher ipsilateral intra-nasal pressures are achieved when additional contralateral nasal packs are inflated. This change in ipsilateral intra-nasal pressure is greater at higher total inflation pressures. At higher pressures, the subjects reported lower mean pain scores when bilateral packs were used compared to unilateral. This effect was only statistically significant at intra-nasal pressures of 140 mmHg and above (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test, p < 0.02). It is possible to increase the ipsilateral nasal cavity pressure by inserting a contralateral nasal pack. Although this extra pressure may be enough to tamponade further venous bleeding without significantly increasing a subject’s discomfort, the high levels of pack pressure required, make this unlikely to be of significant use in the clinical setting.