Assessment of Nasal Airflow and Pain, Safety and Cost of an Improvised Nasal Airway (Nasogastric) Tube After Endoscopic Sinus Surgery

Objective: To compare subjective nasal airflow and overall pain score (as well as safety and added cost of ) using an improvised nasal airway tube (nasogastric tube) versus nasal packing after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). Methods: Design: Quasi Experimental Prospective Cohort Study Setting: Tertiary Government Training Hospital Participants: Twenty-six (26) consecutive patients aged 18 to 77 years old diagnosed with CRSwNP who underwent ESS were alternately assigned to an experimental group (A) of 13, where an improvised nasal airway (nasogastric) tube was placed in addition to the nasal pack or a control group (B) of 13 with nasal packing alone. Results: There was a significant difference in subjective nasal airflow between experimental (A) and control (B) groups during the immediate postoperative period where the mean subjective airflow was 8.07 and 0.00 over 10.00, respectively. No significant difference was noted between the groups in terms of age, gender, severity of polyposis and overall pain score. No complications such as bleeding, Toxic Shock Syndrome, vestibular or alar injury and septal necrosis were noted immediately post-op and after one week follow-up in both groups. An approximate cost of PhP 25 was added to group A. Conclusion: An improvised nasal airway using a nasogastric tube provides adequate airflow without additional pain in the immediate postoperative period. It is safe to use and an affordable option for patients in need of nasal airway stents residing in areas where a preformed nasal packing with incorporated tube stent is not available.