The Journal of otolaryngology · 2004
Early operative intervention versus conventional treatment in epistaxis: randomized prospective trial.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Moshaver Ali, Harris Jeffrey Richard, Liu Richard, Diamond Chris, Seikaly Hadi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This prospective randomized trial was designed to compare intranasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESAL) with conventional nasal packing in the treatment of recurrent epistaxis.
METHODS: Patients were registered in the study databank following referral for epistaxis control to the otolaryngology service at the University of Alberta. All patients were initially packed using Merocel (Xomed Surgical Products, Jacksonville, FL) nasal dressings bilaterally. Patients were enrolled in the study following failure of Merocel packings. Informed consent was obtained in accordance with the Health Research Ethics Board. The patients were then managed with Vaseline nasal packs or ESAL. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, number of hospitalization days, and rates of recurrence were recorded prospectively. The total cost of treatment for each patient was calculated.
RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled in the study. There was a significant reduction in cost and length of hospitalization of the patients undergoing ESAL compared with the conventional nasal packings. ESAL was also 89% effective in controlling the bleeding and had minimal sequelae or complications. The overall calculated cost of patients undergoing ESAL was dollars 5133 compared with dollars 12213 in the conservative group, resulting in an average saving of dollars 7080 per patient. There was overwhelming patient satisfaction with ESAL compared with nasal packings.
CONCLUSION: ESAL is an excellent, well-tolerated, and cost-effective method of treating recurrent epistaxis.
METHODS: Patients were registered in the study databank following referral for epistaxis control to the otolaryngology service at the University of Alberta. All patients were initially packed using Merocel (Xomed Surgical Products, Jacksonville, FL) nasal dressings bilaterally. Patients were enrolled in the study following failure of Merocel packings. Informed consent was obtained in accordance with the Health Research Ethics Board. The patients were then managed with Vaseline nasal packs or ESAL. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, number of hospitalization days, and rates of recurrence were recorded prospectively. The total cost of treatment for each patient was calculated.
RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled in the study. There was a significant reduction in cost and length of hospitalization of the patients undergoing ESAL compared with the conventional nasal packings. ESAL was also 89% effective in controlling the bleeding and had minimal sequelae or complications. The overall calculated cost of patients undergoing ESAL was dollars 5133 compared with dollars 12213 in the conservative group, resulting in an average saving of dollars 7080 per patient. There was overwhelming patient satisfaction with ESAL compared with nasal packings.
CONCLUSION: ESAL is an excellent, well-tolerated, and cost-effective method of treating recurrent epistaxis.