Revue de stomatologie, de chirurgie maxillo-faciale et de chirurgie orale · 2013
[Hemostatic absorbable gel matrix for severe post-traumatic epistaxis].
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Bachelet J T, Bourlet J, Gleizal A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The management of traumatic epistaxis is an important issue for maxillofacial trauma patients, because of their frequency and severity. We assessed a single use sterile hemostatic gel matrix (surgiflo© [SF], Floseal © [FS]) available for this indication.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients were managed between 2008 and 2012 by the same surgeon. The following data was documented for each patient: gender, age, mechanism of trauma or type of surgery, characteristics of epistaxis, the various hemostatic techniques used before using SF, and its effectiveness. The primary endpoint was SF effectiveness compared with usual techniques. The secondary endpoint was the evaluation of patient comfort compared to other hemostatic methods, using a visual analogue scale (VAS).
RESULTS: In nine out of ten cases, epistaxis was controlled after endonasal instillation of SF after failure of wicking, or double balloon catheter in first line treatment, or use of SF directly as first line treatment. The mean post procedure VAS was: 7/10 for wicking (eight patients), 9.3/10 for the double balloon catheter (three patients), 3.2/10 for SF (ten patients).
DISCUSSION: Our study highlights the effectiveness of hemostatic gel matrix in the management of post-traumatic epistaxis compared to usual methods. It also pointed out better patient comfort. A prospective comparative study on a larger cohort of patient would support the legitimacy of SF as first-line treatment for severe posttraumatic epistaxis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients were managed between 2008 and 2012 by the same surgeon. The following data was documented for each patient: gender, age, mechanism of trauma or type of surgery, characteristics of epistaxis, the various hemostatic techniques used before using SF, and its effectiveness. The primary endpoint was SF effectiveness compared with usual techniques. The secondary endpoint was the evaluation of patient comfort compared to other hemostatic methods, using a visual analogue scale (VAS).
RESULTS: In nine out of ten cases, epistaxis was controlled after endonasal instillation of SF after failure of wicking, or double balloon catheter in first line treatment, or use of SF directly as first line treatment. The mean post procedure VAS was: 7/10 for wicking (eight patients), 9.3/10 for the double balloon catheter (three patients), 3.2/10 for SF (ten patients).
DISCUSSION: Our study highlights the effectiveness of hemostatic gel matrix in the management of post-traumatic epistaxis compared to usual methods. It also pointed out better patient comfort. A prospective comparative study on a larger cohort of patient would support the legitimacy of SF as first-line treatment for severe posttraumatic epistaxis.