TY - JOUR
T1 - Posterior epistaxis management
T2 - review of the literature and proposed guidelines of the hellenic rhinological-facial plastic surgery society
AU - Koskinas, Ioannis
AU - Terzis, Timoleon
AU - Georgalas, Christos
AU - Chatzikas, Georgios
AU - Moireas, Georgios
AU - Chrysovergis, Aristidis
AU - Triaridis, Stefanos
AU - Constantinidis, Jannis
AU - Karkos, Petros
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2023.
PY - 2024/4
Y1 - 2024/4
N2 - Purpose: Posterior epistaxis is a common emergency in ENT practice varying in severity and treatment. Many management guidelines have been proposed, all of which are a product of retrospective analyses due to the nature of this pathology, as large-scale double-blind studies are impossible—even unethical—to conduct. The purpose of this review is to perform a thorough analysis and comparison of every treatment plan available and establish guidelines for the best possible outcome in accordance to every parameter studied. Given the extensive heterogeneity of information and the multitude of studies on this topic, along with the comparison of various treatment options, we opted for a literature review as our research approach. Methods: A review of the literature was performed using PubMed Database and search terms included “posterior epistaxis”, “treatment”, “management”, “guidelines”, “algorithm” “nasal packing”, “posterior packing”, “surgery”, “SPA ligation”, “embolization”, “risk factors” or a combination of the above. Results: Initial patients’ assessment invariably results in most cases in posterior packing. There seems to be a superiority in recent literature of early surgery over nasal packing as a definitive treatment. Embolization is usually used after surgery failure, except for specific occasions. Conclusion: Despite the vast heterogeneity of information, there seems to be a need for re-evaluation of the well-established treatment plans according to more recent studies. Graphical abstract: (Figure presented.)
AB - Purpose: Posterior epistaxis is a common emergency in ENT practice varying in severity and treatment. Many management guidelines have been proposed, all of which are a product of retrospective analyses due to the nature of this pathology, as large-scale double-blind studies are impossible—even unethical—to conduct. The purpose of this review is to perform a thorough analysis and comparison of every treatment plan available and establish guidelines for the best possible outcome in accordance to every parameter studied. Given the extensive heterogeneity of information and the multitude of studies on this topic, along with the comparison of various treatment options, we opted for a literature review as our research approach. Methods: A review of the literature was performed using PubMed Database and search terms included “posterior epistaxis”, “treatment”, “management”, “guidelines”, “algorithm” “nasal packing”, “posterior packing”, “surgery”, “SPA ligation”, “embolization”, “risk factors” or a combination of the above. Results: Initial patients’ assessment invariably results in most cases in posterior packing. There seems to be a superiority in recent literature of early surgery over nasal packing as a definitive treatment. Embolization is usually used after surgery failure, except for specific occasions. Conclusion: Despite the vast heterogeneity of information, there seems to be a need for re-evaluation of the well-established treatment plans according to more recent studies. Graphical abstract: (Figure presented.)
KW - Early SPA ligation
KW - Embolization
KW - Guidelines
KW - Management
KW - Nasal packing
KW - Posterior epistaxis
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85178175661
U2 - 10.1007/s00405-023-08310-4
DO - 10.1007/s00405-023-08310-4
M3 - Review article
C2 - 38032485
AN - SCOPUS:85178175661
SN - 0937-4477
VL - 281
SP - 1613
EP - 1627
JO - European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
JF - European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
IS - 4
ER -