On the effectiveness of treatment options in epistaxis: an analysis of 678 interventions.
Rhinology 2012;
49:474-8. [PMID:
21991575 DOI:
10.4193/rhino10.313]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Epistaxis represents one of the most common emergencies in ENT clinics around the world. It creates great physical and emotional stress to the patient as well as a financial burden on health-care systems. A lot of research has been performed with regard to aetiology and possible treatment, however, not much effort has been put into analysing the effectiveness of common treatment forms. It is the objective of this study to clarify which of these treatment forms is reliable.
STUDY DESIGN
Retrospective cohort study.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
2b.
METHODS
Between 03/2007 and 04/2008, all epistaxis therapies including relapses and treatment failures at the University Hospital of Zurich have been documented using a computerised questionnaire. Different treatments were compared to each other.
RESULTS
An analysis of 678 interventions in 537 patients was performed with emphasis on failure proportions and time to occurrence. The estimated failure proportions of coagulation in anterior epistaxis accounts for 14%. Successful treatment of epistaxis in posterior bleedings could be achieved in 62% by packing and in 97% by surgery with a statistically significant difference between the respective groups.
CONCLUSION
Using our treatment options, anterior epistaxis can be cured reliably by cauterisation. Surgical therapies in posterior bleedings are able to successfully salvage failed packing therapies.
Collapse