Background
Wound healing is a complex and dynamic process and a thorough knowledge of the basics of physiology of wound healing is a must to implement principles of chronic wound care. Understanding wound healing at multiple levels—biochemical, physiologic, cellular and molecular provides the surgeon with a framework for basing clinical decisions aimed at optimizing the healing response.

Wound Healing Concepts in Clinical Practice of OMFS.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the advantages and disadvantages of internal maxillary artery (IMA) ligation versus embolization for the treatment of refractory posterior epistaxis.

METHODS: Thirty-nine patients underwent 42 procedures for treatment of posterior epistaxis at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center between 1986 and 1994. Complication rates, failure rates, demographics, and the costs of IMA ligation and embolization were compared. A review of 20 studies published between 1973 and 1995 was done to determine the complication and failure rates of IMA ligation and embolization. Finally, a mail survey was used to determine the availability and use of IMA ligation and embolization by urban and rural otolaryngologists in Ohio.

RESULTS: Complication and failure rates of IMA ligation and embolization were similar at our institution. In the literature review, IMA ligation had a higher complication rate, but fewer failures. Although the major complication rates were not significantly different, those associated with embolization were often more serious than those associated with IMA ligation. At our institution, the cost of IMA embolization was significantly lower than the cost of IMA ligation. Only 11% of Ohio otolaryngologists in nonurban areas have embolization available to treat posterior epistaxis.

CONCLUSION: IMA ligation is more effective than IMA embolization but may be associated with a higher minor complication rate. The major complications that occur with IMA embolization are often more serious. Although IMA embolization was less expensive at our institution, it is unavailable in most nonurban regions in Ohio. Training in the use of IMA ligation for refractory posterior epistaxis should continue in otolaryngology residency training programs despite the increasing availability of embolization at university training centers. (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:636-42.)

Comparison of internal maxillary artery ligation versus embolization for refractory posterior epistaxis

Objectives: A prospective non-blinded randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy of Merocel® and RapidRhino® nasal packs in the treatment of anterior epistaxis.



Methods:  Fifty-two consecutive participants admitted with anterior epistaxis refractory to digital pressure or nasal cautery were randomized to treatment using one or other of the nasal packs. Patients who required repacking because of continued bleeding, only the first packs were included in the analysis. Haemostatic properties of the packs were measured by grading bleeding during and after removal of the pack (0–4, where four is uncontrollable) and by noting if the nose was re-packed or not. The difficulty of insertion and removal (graded 0–3 by clinician where 3 is the most difficult) and the participant's perception of discomfort (graded 0–10, where 10 is the worst pain) during insertion and removal of the pack were also measured.



Results:  For bleeding, the mean values for Merocel® and RapidRhino® during packing and after pack removal were not significant (P = 0.38 and 0.82 respectively). The mean values of patient discomfort on insertion were 6.9 and 5.0 (P = 0.01), and for discomfort on removal were 4.6 and 3.4 (P = 0.05) respectively. The mean values of insertion graded by the clinician were 1.7 and 0.9 (P = 0.0003), and for removal were 1.4 and 0.4 (P < 0.0001).



Conclusions:  RapidRhino® and Merocel® are equally effective in the control of anterior epistaxis but RapidRhino® is significantly more comfortable for the patient and easier for the healthcare worker during insertion and removal.

Randomized controlled trial comparing Merocel and RapidRhino packing in the management of anterior epistaxis.

Purpose of reviewThis article reviews the literature on epistaxis, with a focus on the past 12–18 month, and aims to classify the literature available for this very common otolaryngology emergency.Recent findingsEpistaxis can be classified into primary or secondary epistaxis based on cause. It can a

Epistaxis: update on management.

We have audited our results after changing the management practice in patients with intractable epistaxis. These patients are offered trans-nasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery diathermy with or without anterior ethmoid artery diathermy instead of conventional surgical procedures. During the first year after the change in practice, 145 patients were treated as inpatients for epistaxis. Ten patients (seven per cent) required a surgical procedure under general anaesthesia due to the recurrent nature of bleeding. All 10 patients had endoscopic sphenopalatine artery diathermy, whereas in four patients anterior ethmoid artery diathermy was also performed concurrently. The post-operative hospital stay ranged from one to three days (mean 2.1 days). The mean follow-up was 10 months. The epistaxis recurred in one patient and this was managed conservatively. There were no complications related to surgery. In the previous year, 132 patients were admitted for epistaxis and eight patients had surgical procedures, which included septoplasty, nasal packing and external carotid artery ligation. The post-operative stay ranged from three to six days (mean 3.9 days). Our audit shows that endoscopic sphenopalatine artery diathermy is a safe, successful and effective management option for patients with refractory epistaxis. The morbidity is reduced and the hospital stay is shortened. The sphenopalatine artery diathermy can be combined with anterior ethmoid surgery, when necessary.

Surgical management of intractable epistaxis: audit of results.

A survey to assess variations in management and outcome of patients admitted with epistaxis was conducted. A questionnaire was sent to all consultant otolaryngologists working at NHS hospitals in England and Wales requesting information about management of patients admitted with epistaxis over a 3 month period. Data analysis of information provided by 102 consultants for a total of 933 patients was performed. The average number of patients admitted with epistaxis over a period of 3 months per consultant was 10.2. More than 70% of the patients were aged 60 years or over. Approximately 75% of the patients required nasal packing; the most common pack used was BIPP (Bismuth Iodine Paraffin Paste). Of the patients, 5.6% required general anaesthesia, with less than 1% requiring formal arterial ligation. The mean duration of stay in hospital was 2.9 days. Few complications were reported. Patients admitted with epistaxis were generally managed conservatively, with very few requiring surgical intervention. There was remarkable consensus in various aspects of management of patients admitted with epistaxis.

Management of epistaxis: a national survey.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

B. Kotecha

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Management of epistaxis: a national survey.