Objective To determine if a fiberglass splint material (3M Scotchcast, St Paul, Minn; Smith & Nephew, Inc, Charlotte, NC) serves as a better nasal cast than Aquaplast (Smith & Nephew, Inc) based on the criteria of total preparation time, ease of use, conformability, adhesion, and patient acceptability.
Design Prospective randomized comparison study with statistical analysis.
Setting University-based division of a facial plastic surgery private clinic.
Patients Sixteen consecutive patients desiring a functional and aesthetic improvement underwent open structure rhinoplasty with lateral osteotomies. No patients withdrew because of adverse effects.
Intervention Half of the patients were randomized to the study group (fiberglass splint material) and half to the control group (Aquaplast). Each patient was fitted with the appropriate casting material at the conclusion of the rhinoplasty procedure. Data were collected with respect to total preparation time, ease of use, conformability, and adhesion. Each patient was asked to evaluate the cast for level of comfort after 1 week.
Results There were no significant differences between study groups for adhesion (P = .18) and conformability (P = .35). Patient acceptability was good or excellent in both study groups. The fiberglass splint material was significantly easier to use (P<.001) and required less total preparation time (P<.001). The mean total preparation time for the Aquaplast and fiberglass splint materials were, respectively, 7 minutes 32 seconds and 2 minutes 37 seconds.
Conclusions Compared with the commonly used nasal splinting material Aquaplast, fiberglass splint material is not significantly more adhesive, conformable, or comfortable for the patient. Fiberglass splint material is significantly easier to use and requires less total preparation time than Aquaplast. These differences may provide advantages in the immediate postoperative period and for the long-term success of rhinoplasty surgery.