Intractable epistaxis

Transantral ligation vs. embolization: Efficacy review and cost analysis

E Bradley Strong, D. ANTONIO BELL, LELAND P. JOHNSON, JOHN M. JACOBS

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

81 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

After posterior nasal packing, the two most common therapies for intractable epistaxis are transantral ligation of the internal maxillary artery and percutaneous embolization of the distal internal maxillary artery. However, optimal management of intractable posterior epistaxis remains controversial. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 21 patients treated for intractable epistaxis and obtained data on presentation, risk factors, treatment, success rates, complications, and cost. Twelve patients received percutaneous embolization, five underwent transantral ligation, and four required both. The success rates for transantral ligation and percutaneous embolization were 89% and 94%, respectively. No mortality or serious morbidity occurred with either technique. A cost comparison revealed that transantral ligation was moderately less expensive than percutaneous embolization ($5941 vs. $6783). Although some authors advocate transantral ligation or percutaneous embolization as the procedure of choice for intractable epistaxis, a direct comparison of efficacy and cost reveals that they are comparable procedures with specific strengths and weaknesses. We present our experience and a review of the literature, highlighting the indications and advantages of each technique. We conclude that the choice of treatment modality should be based on the benefits of each procedure as it pertains to the specific needs of the individual patient. (OTOLARYNGOL HEAD NECK SURG 1995;113:674-8.).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)674-678
Number of pages5
JournalOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume113
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 1995
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Epistaxis
Ligation
Costs and Cost Analysis
Maxillary Artery
Nose
Therapeutics
Head
Morbidity
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Intractable epistaxis : Transantral ligation vs. embolization: Efficacy review and cost analysis. / Strong, E Bradley; BELL, D. ANTONIO; JOHNSON, LELAND P.; JACOBS, JOHN M.

In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 113, No. 6, 1995, p. 674-678.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Strong, E Bradley ; BELL, D. ANTONIO ; JOHNSON, LELAND P. ; JACOBS, JOHN M. / Intractable epistaxis : Transantral ligation vs. embolization: Efficacy review and cost analysis. In: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 1995 ; Vol. 113, No. 6. pp. 674-678.
@article{9190aa9fd0e14a80b122ecf49b604269,
title = "Intractable epistaxis: Transantral ligation vs. embolization: Efficacy review and cost analysis",
abstract = "After posterior nasal packing, the two most common therapies for intractable epistaxis are transantral ligation of the internal maxillary artery and percutaneous embolization of the distal internal maxillary artery. However, optimal management of intractable posterior epistaxis remains controversial. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 21 patients treated for intractable epistaxis and obtained data on presentation, risk factors, treatment, success rates, complications, and cost. Twelve patients received percutaneous embolization, five underwent transantral ligation, and four required both. The success rates for transantral ligation and percutaneous embolization were 89{\%} and 94{\%}, respectively. No mortality or serious morbidity occurred with either technique. A cost comparison revealed that transantral ligation was moderately less expensive than percutaneous embolization ($5941 vs. $6783). Although some authors advocate transantral ligation or percutaneous embolization as the procedure of choice for intractable epistaxis, a direct comparison of efficacy and cost reveals that they are comparable procedures with specific strengths and weaknesses. We present our experience and a review of the literature, highlighting the indications and advantages of each technique. We conclude that the choice of treatment modality should be based on the benefits of each procedure as it pertains to the specific needs of the individual patient. (OTOLARYNGOL HEAD NECK SURG 1995;113:674-8.).",
author = "Strong, {E Bradley} and BELL, {D. ANTONIO} and JOHNSON, {LELAND P.} and JACOBS, {JOHN M.}",
year = "1995",
doi = "10.1016/S0194-5998(95)70004-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "113",
pages = "674--678",
journal = "Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)",
issn = "0194-5998",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intractable epistaxis

T2 - Transantral ligation vs. embolization: Efficacy review and cost analysis

AU - Strong, E Bradley

AU - BELL, D. ANTONIO

AU - JOHNSON, LELAND P.

AU - JACOBS, JOHN M.

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - After posterior nasal packing, the two most common therapies for intractable epistaxis are transantral ligation of the internal maxillary artery and percutaneous embolization of the distal internal maxillary artery. However, optimal management of intractable posterior epistaxis remains controversial. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 21 patients treated for intractable epistaxis and obtained data on presentation, risk factors, treatment, success rates, complications, and cost. Twelve patients received percutaneous embolization, five underwent transantral ligation, and four required both. The success rates for transantral ligation and percutaneous embolization were 89% and 94%, respectively. No mortality or serious morbidity occurred with either technique. A cost comparison revealed that transantral ligation was moderately less expensive than percutaneous embolization ($5941 vs. $6783). Although some authors advocate transantral ligation or percutaneous embolization as the procedure of choice for intractable epistaxis, a direct comparison of efficacy and cost reveals that they are comparable procedures with specific strengths and weaknesses. We present our experience and a review of the literature, highlighting the indications and advantages of each technique. We conclude that the choice of treatment modality should be based on the benefits of each procedure as it pertains to the specific needs of the individual patient. (OTOLARYNGOL HEAD NECK SURG 1995;113:674-8.).

AB - After posterior nasal packing, the two most common therapies for intractable epistaxis are transantral ligation of the internal maxillary artery and percutaneous embolization of the distal internal maxillary artery. However, optimal management of intractable posterior epistaxis remains controversial. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 21 patients treated for intractable epistaxis and obtained data on presentation, risk factors, treatment, success rates, complications, and cost. Twelve patients received percutaneous embolization, five underwent transantral ligation, and four required both. The success rates for transantral ligation and percutaneous embolization were 89% and 94%, respectively. No mortality or serious morbidity occurred with either technique. A cost comparison revealed that transantral ligation was moderately less expensive than percutaneous embolization ($5941 vs. $6783). Although some authors advocate transantral ligation or percutaneous embolization as the procedure of choice for intractable epistaxis, a direct comparison of efficacy and cost reveals that they are comparable procedures with specific strengths and weaknesses. We present our experience and a review of the literature, highlighting the indications and advantages of each technique. We conclude that the choice of treatment modality should be based on the benefits of each procedure as it pertains to the specific needs of the individual patient. (OTOLARYNGOL HEAD NECK SURG 1995;113:674-8.).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029619158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029619158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0194-5998(95)70004-8

DO - 10.1016/S0194-5998(95)70004-8

M3 - Article

VL - 113

SP - 674

EP - 678

JO - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)

JF - Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)

SN - 0194-5998

IS - 6

ER -