International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology · 2023
Comparing recurrence between cautery techniques in pediatric epistaxis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schafer Austin D, McNutt Megan, Fulmer Amy, Bourgeois Tran, Elmaraghy Charles A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of recurrent epistaxis between children treated with silver nitrate (SN) in the office or electrocautery (EC) in the operating room (OR).
METHODS: Patients aged 2-18 diagnosed with epistaxis (ICD R04.0) in 2018 and treated with SN or EC were retrospectively reviewed. Epistaxis laterality, history of nasal trauma, and personal or family history of a bleeding disorder were recorded. Patients with prior cautery or epistaxis secondary to a procedure were excluded. Recurrence was defined as initial encounter after cautery with documented epistaxis. Patients were followed up into 2022 to track onset of recurrence. Time to recurrence between SN and EC was compared with hazard curves with predictors for recurrence analyzed via Cox's proportional hazard regression.
RESULTS: Among 291 patients cauterized for epistaxis, 62 % (n = 181) received SN compared to 38 % (n = 110) who underwent EC. There was significantly higher risk of recurrence when treated with SN compared to EC (Hazard ratio 2.45, 95 % CI: 1.57-3.82, P < 0.0001). Median time to recurrence was not statistically different between techniques (6.39 months (SN) (IQR: 2.33, 14.82) vs. 4.11 months (EC) (IQR: 1.18, 20.86), P = 0.4154). Complication rates were low for both groups (1.16 % (SN) vs. 0 % (EC), P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Among patients with epistaxis, risk of recurrence is significantly higher in those cauterized with SN compared to EC. Time to recurrence is not significantly different between cautery techniques.
METHODS: Patients aged 2-18 diagnosed with epistaxis (ICD R04.0) in 2018 and treated with SN or EC were retrospectively reviewed. Epistaxis laterality, history of nasal trauma, and personal or family history of a bleeding disorder were recorded. Patients with prior cautery or epistaxis secondary to a procedure were excluded. Recurrence was defined as initial encounter after cautery with documented epistaxis. Patients were followed up into 2022 to track onset of recurrence. Time to recurrence between SN and EC was compared with hazard curves with predictors for recurrence analyzed via Cox's proportional hazard regression.
RESULTS: Among 291 patients cauterized for epistaxis, 62 % (n = 181) received SN compared to 38 % (n = 110) who underwent EC. There was significantly higher risk of recurrence when treated with SN compared to EC (Hazard ratio 2.45, 95 % CI: 1.57-3.82, P < 0.0001). Median time to recurrence was not statistically different between techniques (6.39 months (SN) (IQR: 2.33, 14.82) vs. 4.11 months (EC) (IQR: 1.18, 20.86), P = 0.4154). Complication rates were low for both groups (1.16 % (SN) vs. 0 % (EC), P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Among patients with epistaxis, risk of recurrence is significantly higher in those cauterized with SN compared to EC. Time to recurrence is not significantly different between cautery techniques.