 |
|
New Modification of Hot-Water Irrigation in the Treatment of Posterior Epistaxis
Sven-Eric Stangerup, MD;
Hans Dommerby, MD;
Christian Siim, MD;
Lone Kemp, MD;
Jan Stage, MD
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125:686-690.
Background Tamponade treatment for epistaxis is painful and traumatic to the nasal mucosa, and may necessitate hospitalization for several days. Hot-water irrigation (HWI) was introduced as a treatment of epistaxis more than 100 years ago. In a previous study the treatment proved to be effective, less painful, and less traumatic, and required a shorter hospital stay than tamponade treatment. However, HWI has the risk of aspiration during treatment. To minimize this risk, a special catheter has been designed.
Objectives To evaluate the modified HWI and to compare the results with tamponade treatment, with respect to patient compliance, effectiveness, recurrence of bleeding, pain, complications, and length of hospital stay.
Patients A total of 122 patients, hospitalized for posterior epistaxis, were randomized to receive either HWI or tamponade treatment.
Results In the HWI group, 31 (55%) of the patients could be discharged from the hospital after the initial treatment only, compared with 29 (44%) of the patients treated with tamponade. Using a 10-cm visual analog scale, the mean pain score during treatment was 4.7 in the HWI group compared with 7.5 in the tamponade group. The mean hospital stay was 2.9 days for the HWI group vs 4.0 days for the tamponade group. After discharge from the hospital, necrosis or synechia was found on rhinoscopy in 12 patients (40%) in the tamponade group compared with none in the HWI group.
Conclusions Compared with tamponade treatment, HWI is as effective, requires a significantly shorter hospital stay, is less traumatic to the nose, and is significantly less painful.
From the Department of Otolaryngology, Gentofte University Hospital, Gentofte, Denmark.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Hot-Water Irrigation in the Treatment of Posterior Epistaxis
Seidman and Stangerup
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;125:1285-1285.
FULL TEXT
|
