The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2017
Intranasal cautery for the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Mcleod R W J, Price A, Williams R J, Smith M E, Smith M, Owens D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cauterisation techniques are commonly used and widely accepted for the management of epistaxis. This review assesses which methods of intranasal cautery should be endorsed as optimum treatment on the basis of benefits, risks, patient tolerance and economic assessment.
METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed using a standardised methodology and search strategy.
RESULTS: Eight studies were identified: seven prospective controlled trials and one randomised controlled trial. Pooling of data was possible from 3 studies, yielding a total of 830 patients. Significantly lower re-bleed rates were identified (p < 0.01) using electrocautery (14.5 per cent) when compared to chemical cautery (35.1 per cent). No evidence suggested that electrocautery was associated with more adverse events or discomfort. Limited evidence supported the use of a vasoconstrictor agent and operating microscope during the procedure. The included studies had considerable heterogeneity in terms of design and outcome measures.
CONCLUSION: Consistent evidence suggests that electrocautery has higher success rates than chemical cautery, and is not associated with increased complications or patient discomfort. Lower quality evidence suggests that electrocautery reduces costs and duration of hospital stay.
METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed using a standardised methodology and search strategy.
RESULTS: Eight studies were identified: seven prospective controlled trials and one randomised controlled trial. Pooling of data was possible from 3 studies, yielding a total of 830 patients. Significantly lower re-bleed rates were identified (p < 0.01) using electrocautery (14.5 per cent) when compared to chemical cautery (35.1 per cent). No evidence suggested that electrocautery was associated with more adverse events or discomfort. Limited evidence supported the use of a vasoconstrictor agent and operating microscope during the procedure. The included studies had considerable heterogeneity in terms of design and outcome measures.
CONCLUSION: Consistent evidence suggests that electrocautery has higher success rates than chemical cautery, and is not associated with increased complications or patient discomfort. Lower quality evidence suggests that electrocautery reduces costs and duration of hospital stay.