medigraphic.com
ISSN 0301-696X (Print)
Órgano de difusión del Servicio de Sanidad Militar y del Colegio Nacional de Médicos Militares

2018, Number 3-4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Sanid Milit Mex 2018; 72 (3-4)

Endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation for posterior epistaxis

Morales-Cadena GM, García-Ramírez, JA, Fonseca-Chávez MG, Valente-Acosta B, Rodríguez-Baca T, Bollain-Goytia IS, López-Ornelas L

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 180-186
PDF size: 224.94 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: The cases of posterior epistaxis represent approximately 10 to 20% of all epistaxis. The conventional treatment for this type of ailment is nasal packing. A surgical approach (cauterization and/or clipping) is indicated when there is a failure of the conventional medical treatment; however, it is currently considered as the first option. Material and methods: All the epistaxis cases treated at the Hospital Español de México from January 2007 to January 2017 were reviewed. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to compare the conservative group (nasal packing) versus the surgical one (clipping). Results: 242 dossiers were reviewed, of which 108 were excluded. 134 patients were included: 96 belonged to the surgical group and 38 to the conservative one. 60.20% were male and 39.80% were female. The mean age was 60 years. The surgical group (3.4 ± 1.9 days) required fewer days of hospital stay compared to the conservative group (4.8 ± 3.0 days), p ‹ 0.01. Patients with right-sided epistaxis in the surgical group had a longer surgical time (p = 0.001) and more days of hospital stay (p = 0.006). Conclusions: Epistaxis occurs in most cases idiopathically, often in men over 60 years with cardiopulmonary diseases, without a precise knowledge of its physiopathology. Right epistaxis treated surgically results in more morbidity. The surgical approach is safe, effective and shortens the days of hospital stay compared to the conservative treatment.


REFERENCES

  1. Klotz DA, Winkle MR, Richmon J, Hengerer AS. Surgical management of posterior epistaxis: a changing paradigm. Laryngoscope. 2002; 112 (9): 1577-1582.

  2. Minni A, Dragonetti A, Gera R, Barbaro M, Magliulo G, Filipo R. Endoscopic management of recurrent epistaxis: the experience of two metropolitan hospitals in Italy. Acta Otolaryngol. 2010; 130 (9): 1048-1052.

  3. Agreda B, Urpegui A, Ignacio Alfonso J, Valles H. Ligation of the sphenopalatine artery in posterior epistaxis. Retrospective study of 50 patients. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2011; 62 (3): 194-198.

  4. Paul J, Kanotra SP, Kanotra S. Endoscopic management of posterior epistaxis. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011; 63 (2): 141-144.

  5. Tournour DA, Masoero PS, Malpede MA, Sánchez-Feraldo SM. Epistaxis severas. Nuestra experiencia y revisión de literatura. FASO. 2015; 2: 14-22.

  6. McClurg SW, Carrau R. Endoscopic management of posterior epistaxis: a review. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2014; 34 (1): 1-8.

  7. Thakar A, Sharan CJ. Endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation for refractory posterior epistaxis. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005; 57 (4): 301-303.

  8. Snyderman C, Carrau R. Endoscopic ligation of the sphenopalatine artery for epistaxis. Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 1997; 8: 85-89.

  9. Pádua F, Voegels R. Severe posterior epistaxis —endoscopic surgical anatomy. Laryngoscope. 2008; 118: 156-161.

  10. Shires CB, Boughter JD, Sebelik ME. Sphenopalatine artery ligation: a cadaver anatomic study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011; 145 (3): 494-497.

  11. Morales-Cadena M, González-Juárez F, Tapia-Álvarez L, Fernando-Macías VL. Variantes y referencias anatómicas del foramen esfenopalatino en especímenes cadavéricos: un estudio en población mexicana Cir Cir. 2014; 82 (4): 367-371.

  12. Alzérreca AE, León SK, Boettiger BP, Naser GA. Tratamiento endoscópico de las epistaxis posteriores: Experiencia del Hospital Clínico de la Universidad de Chile entre los años 2007 y 2011. Rev Otorrinolaringol Cir Cabeza Cuello. 2012; 72 (2): 169-174.

  13. Nouraei SA, Maani T, Hajioff D, Saleh HA, Mackay IS. Outcome of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery occlusion for intractable epistaxis: a 10-year experience. Laryngoscope. 2007; 117 (8): 1452-1456.

  14. Cediel E, Vázquez-Pérez S, De las Heras N, Lahera V, Navarro-Cid J, Maeso R et al. Alteraciones endoteliales en el envejecimiento. Nefrología. 1999; 19: 35-45.

  15. Shakeel M, Trinidade A, McCluney N, Clive B. Complementary and alternative medicine in epistaxis: a point worth considering during the patient’s history. Eur J Emerg Med. 2010; 17 (1): 17-19.

  16. Ahmed M, Akram S, Ahmed A et al. To compare efficacy and discomfort in posterior nasal packing with Foley’s catheters versus BIPP gauze packing in cases of posterior epistaxis. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2015; 65: 640-643.

  17. Corrales CE, Goode RL. Should patients with posterior nasal packing require ICU admission? Laryngoscope. 2013; 123 (12): 2928-2929.

  18. Vermeeren L, Derks W, Fokkens W, Menger DJ. Complications of balloon packing in epistaxis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; 272 (10): 3077-3081.

  19. Dedhia RC, Desai SS, Smith KJ, Lee S, Schaitkin BM, Snyderman CH et al. Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation versus nasal packing as first-line treatment for posterior epistaxis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013; 3 (7): 563-566.

  20. Dessi P, Castro F, Triglia JM, Zanaret M, Cannoni M. Major complications of sinus surgery: a review of 1192 procedures. J Laryngol Otol. 1994; 108 (3): 212-215.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com