SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Intranasal adhesions following septoplasty and septoturbinoplasty - a narrative review
More details
Hide details
1
Oddział Laryngologii z Pododdziałem Chirurgii Szczękowo Twarzowej,, Wielospecjalistyczny Szpital Wojewódzki w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim Sp. z o.o., Polska
Submission date: 2026-01-19
Final revision date: 2026-02-07
Acceptance date: 2026-03-11
Publication date: 2026-03-30
Corresponding author
Mateusz Jan Stępiński
Oddział Laryngologii z Pododdziałem Chirurgii Szczękowo Twarzowej,, Wielospecjalistyczny Szpital Wojewódzki w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim Sp. z o.o., Dekerta 1, 66-400, Gorzów Wielkopolski / Gorzów Wielkopolski (gmina m, Polska
RhinoScope 2026;1(1):56-66
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Intranasal adhesions (synechiae) are among the most common complications following septoplasty and septoconchoplasty. Although often considered minor, they may impair nasal airflow, reduce patient satisfaction, and contribute to persistent nasal obstruction requiring additional treatment.
Objective:
To review current evidence regarding the incidence, risk factors, prevention, and management of intranasal adhesions following septoplasty and septoconchoplasty.
Materials and Methods:
A narrative review was conducted using the PubMed database. Nine studies directly addressing postoperative adhesions after septoplasty or septoconchoplasty were identified. Following manual reference screening and inclusion of relevant supporting publications, a total of 21 articles were reviewed. Original studies, comparative studies, randomized trials, cohort studies, and relevant reviews published in English were included.
Results:
Reported adhesion rates varied substantially across studies, ranging from approximately 3,1% to 26.75% in studies specifically evaluating septal surgery. Higher rates, 36,2%, have been reported, particularly following procedures involving the inferior turbinates. The main factors associated with adhesion formation were mucosal injury, contact between opposing raw surfaces, and postoperative management. Evidence regarding routine use of septal splints remains conflicting, although several studies demonstrated reduced adhesion rates, particularly in high-risk patients. Transseptal suturing appears to be an effective alternative to nasal packing, while traditional gauze packing may increase adhesion risk. Endoscopic techniques may reduce mucosal trauma and postoperative complications. Limited evidence suggests that topical mitomycin C may be beneficial in selected cases.
Conclusions:
Intranasal adhesions remain a clinically relevant complication of septoplasty and septoconchoplasty. Preservation of mucosal integrity, minimization of tissue trauma, and appropriate postoperative care are essential for reducing their occurrence.
REFERENCES (21)
1.
Eşki E, Yılmaz İ. Pack free septoplasty: functional outcomes and complications. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg.2015;25(5):275-278. doi:10.5606/kbbihtisas.2015.01879.
2.
Ngamdu YB, Kirfi AM, Adamu A, Abubakar A, Edem KP, Ahmad BM. Endoscopic septoplasty: a retrospective analysis of indications and outcome. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2023;13(2):78-81. doi:10.4103/jwas.jwas_247_22.
3.
Stępiński MJ, Banaszewski J. Risk factors leading to the formation of intranasal synechiae (adhesions) in patients who underwent septo- and septoturbinoplasty (a retrospective cohort study). Ann Med Surg (Lond).2025;87(6):3082-3096. doi:10.1097/MS9.0000000000003223.
4.
Mahmood K, Baig MN, Ayub N, Aziz T. Efficacy of nasal splints in reducing the incidence of intranasal adhesions following septoplasty. J Islam Int Med Coll. 2016;11(1):8-10.
5.
Derin S, Sahan M, Deveer M, Erdogan S, Tetiker H, Koseoglu S. The causes of persistent and recurrent nasal obstruction after primary septoplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(4):828-830. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000002505.
6.
Sayeed A, Alam M, Sharma SC, Hasan SA. Mitomycin-C in post-endoscopic septoplasty synechiae: does it really helps? Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;71(Suppl 3):2091-2095. doi:10.1007/s12070-018-1496-z.
7.
Champagne C, Ballivet de Régloix S, Genestier L, Crambert A, Maurin O, Pons Y. Endoscopic vs. conventional septoplasty: a review of the literature. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2016;133(1):43-46. doi:10.1016/j.anorl.2015.11.004.
8.
Campbell JB, Watson MG, Shenoi PM. The role of intranasal splints in the prevention of post-operative nasal adhesions. J Laryngol Otol. 1987;101(11):1140-1143. doi:10.1017/S0022215100103391.
9.
Cook JA, Murrant NJ, Evans KL, Lavelle RJ. Intranasal splints and their effects on intranasal adhesions and septal stability. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1992;17(1):24-27. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2273.1992.tb00982.x.
10.
Malki D, Quine SM, Pfleiderer AG. Nasal splints, revisited. J Laryngol Otol. 1999;113(8):725-727. doi:10.1017/S0022215100145037.
11.
Stępiński MJ, Banaszewski J. Intranasal synechiae as complications of rhinosurgical treatment - a review of current knowledge. J Clin Med. 2023;12(21):6831. doi:10.3390/jcm12216831.
12.
Tang S, Kacker A. Should intranasal splints be used after nasal septal surgery? Laryngoscope. 2012;122(8):1647-1648. doi:10.1002/lary.23324.
13.
Jung YG, Hong JW, Eun YG, Kim MG. Objective usefulness of thin Silastic septal splints after septal surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2011;25(3):182-185. doi:10.2500/ajra.2011.25.3584.
14.
Naik K. A novel way of trans-septal splint suturing without nasal packing for septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;67(1):48-50. doi:10.1007/s12070-014-0763-x.
15.
Cukurova I, Cetinkaya EA, Mercan GC, Demirhan E, Gumussoy M. Retrospective analysis of 697 septoplasty surgery cases: packing versus trans-septal suturing method. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2012;32(2):111-114.
16.
Meena R, Sharma R, Malhotra V, Rathore PK. Comparison of trans-septal suturing technique with polyvinyl alcohol sponge-based nasal packing for hemostasis in septoplasty. Cureus. 2022;14(5):e25161. doi:10.7759/cureus.25161.
17.
Özbal Koç AE, Türkoğlu Babakurban S, Kibar SS, Büyüklü F. A comparative study on nasal packing after septoplasty: does it matter in terms of patient comfort, bleeding, and crust or synechia formation? Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 2016;26(3):152-158. doi:10.5606/kbbihtisas.2016.62444.
18.
Dutta S, Mukherjee A, Saha J, Biswas G, Haldar D, Sen I, et al. Modified technique of anterior nasal packing: a comparative study report. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;64(4):341-345. doi:10.1007/s12070-011-0343-2.
19.
Kurtaran H, Ugur KS, Yilmaz CS, Kaya M, Yuksel A, Ark N, et al. The effect of different nasal irrigation solutions following septoplasty and concha radiofrequency: a prospective randomized study. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol.2018;84(2):185-190. doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2017.01.005.
20.
Veluswamy A, Handa S, Shivaswamy S. Nasal septal clips: an alternative to nasal packing after septal surgery? Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;64(4):346-350. doi:10.1007/s12070-011-0388-2.
21.
White A, Murray JA. Intranasal adhesion formation following surgery for chronic nasal obstruction. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1988;13(2):139-143. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2273.1988.tb00754.x.