Delayed epistaxis after endoscopic transnasal pituitary tumor resection: clinical characteristics, risk factors, treatment and prevention.

BACKGROUND: Delayed epistaxis after endoscopic transnasal pituitary tumor resection (ETPTR) is a critical complication, tending to cause aspiration or hemorrhagic shock. This study assessed clinical characteristics, risk factors, and provide treatment and prevention advice of this complication. METHODS: This was a retrospective monocentric analysis of 862 patients who underwent ETPTR. Statistical analyses of clinical data revealed the incidence, sources and onset time of delayed epistaxis. Univariate analysis and binary logistic regression were used to identify risk factors. RESULTS: The incidence of delayed epistaxis was 2.78% (24/862), with an average onset time of 20.71 ± 7.39 days. The bleeding sources were: posterior nasal septal artery branch of sphenopalatine artery (12/24), multiple inflammatory mucosae (8/24), sphenopalatine artery trunk (3/24) and sphenoid sinus bone (1/24). Univariate analysis and binary logistic regression analysis confirmed that hypertension, nasal septum deviation, chronic rhinosinusitis and growth hormone pituitary tumor subtype were independent risk factors for delayed epistaxis. Sex, age, history of diabetes, tumor size, tumor invasion and operation time were not associated with delayed epistaxis. All patients with delayed epistaxis were successfully managed through endoscopic transnasal hemostasis without recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed epistaxis after ETPTR tends to have specific onset periods and risk factors. Prevention of these characteristics may reduce the occurrence of delayed epistaxis. Endoscopic transnasal hemostasis is recommended as the preferred treatment for delayed epistaxis.

Plus moist HS-W®: a new nasal packing material for the middle meatus in endoscopic sinus surgery.

PURPOSE: Removal of the current calcium alginate packing materials to the middle meatus in endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is usually accompanied by discomfort or pain owing to the hard and brittle nature of these materials. Plus moist HS-W® is a new calcium alginate packing material released in 2022 developed to overcome this issue by changing the uronic acid component. We aimed to compare the discomfort/pain during the removal of Plus moist HS-W® with Kaltostat®, as well as their suitability as packing materials in ESS. METHODS: Kaltostat® and Plus moist HS-W® were used as packing materials in 22 and 21 patients who underwent ESS in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Patients were asked to rate the pain during the packing removal 10 days after ESS using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). The ratio of residual packing materials, number of suctions (insertions/extractions of the suction cannula), and time required to remove packing materials were measured. Postoperative complications such as hemorrhage, local infection, lateralization of the middle turbinate, and synechia of the middle meatus were also evaluated. RESULTS: The Plus moist HS-W® group exhibited significantly lower NRS pain scores, a lower ratio of residual packing materials, a reduced number of suctions, and a shorter time required to remove the packing. No obvious postoperative complications occurred in both groups except for one suspicious case of a slight infection in the Kaltostat® group. CONCLUSION: Compared with Kaltostat®, Plus moist HS-W®, characterized by better gelatinization than Kaltostat®, benefits patients by minimizing discomfort/pain during removal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

[Fundamentals and practice of the application of nasal packing in sinonasal surgery]. / Grundlagen und Praxis der Anwendung von Nasentamponaden in der endonasalen Chirurgie.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This paper presents an overview on nasal packing materials which are available in Germany. The current literature is analyzed whether there are robust criteria regarding use nasal packing after sinonasal surgery, whether there are fundamental and proven advantages or disadvantages of products, and what this means in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Selective literature analysis using the PubMed database (key words "nasal packing", "nasal tamponade", "nasal surgery", "sinonasal surgery", or "sinus surgery"), corresponding text books and resulting secondary literature. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Because of systematic methodological shortcomings, the literature does not help in the decision-making about which nasal packing should be used after which kind of sinonasal surgery. In fact, individual approaches for the many different clinical scenarios are recommended. In principle, nasal packing aims in hemostasis, should promote wound healing, and should not result in secondary morbidity. Nasal packing materials should be smooth (non-absorbable materials), inert (absorbable materials), and should not exert excessive pressure. Using non-absorbable packing entails the risk of potentially lethal aspiration and ingestion. For safety reasons inpatient control is recommended as long as this packing is in situ. With other, uncritical packing materials and in patients with special conditions, outpatient control could be justified.

Effectiveness Of Computed Tomography-Guided Nasotracheal Intubation Procedure On Predicting Tube Advancement Difficulty And Preventing Epistaxis: A Prospective Case-Control Study.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of computed tomography-guided nasotracheal intubation procedure in predicting tube advancement difficulty and preventing epistaxis. METHODS: The prospective study was conducted at Erciyes University Faculty of Dentistry from April 2018 to June 2019 and comprised maxillofacial surgery patients of either gender aged 18-50 years who were due to undergo bimaxillary orthognathic surgery, which was defined as American Society of Anaesthesiology grade I or II. The space where the tube was to be passed in the internal nasal valve region was measured horizontally and vertically using computed tomography. A single experienced anaesthesiologists intubated all the patients who were later divided into 'easy' group A and 'difficult' group B on the basis of the effort required to advance the tube through the nasal passage. Data was analysed using JASP version 0.14.1.0). RESULTS: Of the 60 patients, 42(70%) were females and 18(30%) were males. The overall mean age was 29.0±10.5 years and the mean body mass index value was 23.6±4.0 kg/m 2 (p>0.05). There were 28(46.6%) patients in group A, and 32(53.3%) in group B. Median distances were significantly shorter and epistaxis was significantly higher in group B compared to group A (p<0.001). The cut-off values to reveal the distance at which difficulty may be experienced while advancing the tube, determined through receiver operating characteristic analysis, were 1.09 cm for vertical and 0.39cm for horizontal distances. CONCLUSIONS: The nasotracheal intubation procedure under the guidance of computed tomography could help predict the difficulty of tube advancement, and could thus prevent epistaxis and other related nasal intubation complications. Clinical trial number: NCT05525754.

Tranexamic acid administration practice in otolaryngology head & neck surgery; international survey.

PURPOSE: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is a potent pro-coagulation drug. Pre-operative, preventive TXA administration and TXA use for active bleeding are established treatments in many medical situations; yet, less is known about its use in otolaryngology head and neck surgery practice. The primary study goals were: MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an international survey exploring TXA administration strategy. The electronic, anonymous, questionnaire was emailed to all registered Israeli and American Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) physicians, investigating TXA administration: RESULTS: Overall, 317 otolaryngologists participated in the study. TXA was administered to 40.5 % of the pediatric population and 50 % of the adult patients when needed. Epistaxis was the most common indication for TXA administration (48-55 %). A small number of otolaryngologists, 4-13 %, recommended preventive TXA for various operations. More surgeons include TXA in their practice and adjusted the dose according to renal function in academic compared to non-academic medical centers and among otolaryngologists practicing in Israel compared to the United States. CONCLUSIONS: TXA is provided by many otolaryngologists to treat active epistaxis but to a substantially lesser extent as a preventive measure. TXA is given to children and adults, some with substantial comorbidities. Treatment is more common among surgeons working in academic institutes and medical centers in Israel.

Peri-operative complications of sphenopalatine artery ligation: a 10-year series from two secondary care centres.

BACKGROUND: There is currently limited evidence regarding the potential complications of sphenopalatine artery ligation. The post-operative outcomes at two secondary care centres over a 10-year period were reviewed. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of patients undergoing emergency and elective sphenopalatine artery ligation between January 2011 and January 2021. Their demographics, peri-operative care and post-operative outcomes were recorded. The median follow-up time was 54 days (range, 0-2657 days). RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were included. Four patients (4.4 per cent) had a septal perforation at post-operative review. Nineteen patients (20.9 per cent) had post-operative bleeding that extended their in-patient stay, with five patients (5.5 per cent) requiring revision surgery. Pre-operative non-dissolvable nasal packing was used a median of 1 time (range, 0-8 times). CONCLUSION: Further research on outcomes of sphenopalatine artery ligation is needed. Pre-operative non-dissolvable nasal packing, concurrent septal surgical procedures, surgical techniques, and co-morbidities such as hypertension represent potential confounding factors that could not be further assessed in this small, retrospective study.

Effects of nasal irrigation after endoscopic transsphenoidal resection in patients with pituitary adenomas: A randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to explore the methods to reduce or prevent nasal complications after endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary adenoma resection. We also examined the effects of nasal irrigation after this procedure was performed. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed. Sixty patients of a tertiary hospital were enrolled in this study. The subjects were randomly divided into a control group and an intervention group. The subjects of the control group were given routine guidance, and 20 mL of normal saline was atomized through inhalation. The gauze was removed 7 days after surgery. The patients of the intervention group were given 50 mL of a 2% saline solution at 37°C to 38°C for bilateral nasal irrigation for 1 week. After that, patients were given 50 mL of a 0.9% normal saline solution at 37°C to 38°C for bilateral nasal irrigations. The complications of the two groups were collected at baseline, 1 week after intervention, 1 month, and 3 months after intervention. The data were analyzed using the chi-square test. RESULTS: A 1-month after intervention, there were significant differences in dysosmia, epistaxis, and nasal adhesion between the intervention and control groups. A 3-month after intervention, only olfactory disturbances were significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal irrigation helps reduce the incidence of complications such as epistaxis and nasal adhesions in the early postoperative period. It can also promote the elimination or reduction of olfactory disturbances.

For nasotracheal intubation, which nostril results in less epistaxis: right or left?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nasotracheal intubation is usually required in patients undergoing oromaxillofacial, otolaryngological or plastic surgery to prevent the airway encroaching into the operating field. Epistaxis is the most common complication, but which nostril is associated with a lower incidence and severity of epistaxis is still unclear. OBJECTIVE: When both nostrils are patent, to determine the preferred nostril for nasotracheal intubation under general anaesthesia. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was the incidence of epistaxis and the secondary outcomes included the incidence of severe epistaxis, the time required to pass the tube through the nasal passage and total intubation time. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from database inception to 1 March 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The only studies included were RCTs comparing epistaxis related to nasotracheal intubation via right or left nostril, in adult surgery patients undergoing general anaesthesia. RESULTS: Ten RCTs with 1658 patients were included. Compared with the left nostril, intubation via the right nostril was associated with a significantly lower incidence of epistaxis: risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were 0.78 (0.62 to 0.99), P = 0.04: a lower incidence of severe epistaxis (five studies, n=923), RR 0.40 (0.22 to 0.75), P = 0.004: and a shorter intubation time (three studies, n=345), mean difference -7.28 (-14.40 to -0.16) seconds, P = 0.05. In two studies (n=310), no significant difference between the right and left nostril was observed in the time to pass the tube through the nasal passages, mean difference -0.59 (-1.95 to 0.77) s, P = 0.40. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the current available evidence, when both nostrils are patent, the right nostril is more appropriate for nasotracheal intubation, with a lower incidence and severity of epistaxis and faster intubation time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020169949).

Ephedrine pretreatment for nasotracheal intubation-related epistaxis in maxillofacial surgery with sufficient lubrication: A randomized clinical trial.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Prior to nasotracheal intubation (NTI), topical nasal vasoconstrictors are used to prevent NTI-related epistaxis (NTIRE). Since we learned that there is no significant increase in NTIRE among hypertensive patients undergoing NTI with adequate lubrication but without vasoconstrictors, we initiated this randomized controlled study to assess the necessity of vasoconstrictor use in reducing NTIRE. METHODS: Patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification 1 and normal coagulation function, planned to undergo maxillofacial surgery with NTI were enrolled. Patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to each of the treatment groups: nasal treatment using pure oxybuprocaine gel with adequate lubrication (group G) or 1% ephedrine in addition to oxybuprocaine gel with adequate lubrication (group EG). In addition, the incidence and severity of NTIRE and intubation adjustments were studied. RESULTS: A total of 844 patients, 429 and 415 (groups G and EG, respectively), were included in the analysis. No significant differences were observed in the NTIRE incidence rates in groups G (28%) and EG (27%; p = 0.75, relative risk [RR] = 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.29). No significant differences in the NTIRE incidence rates between the two nostrils were observed in both groups (group G: left, 27.9% vs. right, 28% [p = 0.98, RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.67-1.51]; group EG: left, 25.8% vs. right, 27.9% [p = 0.63, RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.72-1.73]. No significant difference was observed in the severity of NTIRE (p = 0.74). In case of difficult advancement of the endotracheal tube, NTIRE incidence was 71% vs. 12% with smooth intubation (p < 0.01, RR = 18.33, 95% CI 12.55-26.77). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Well-lubricated nasotracheal intubation does not require pretreatment with ephedrine to reduce NTIRE.

Role of Anterior Nasal Packing in Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery: Italian Survey.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, the endoscopic endonasal approach to sellar and parasellar region tumors is a common technique in neurosurgery, and surgical nuances, complications, and management strategies are shared in a multidisciplinary setting between neurosurgeons and ear, nose, and throat surgeons. Due to the heterogeneity of its variations, the role of the anterior nasal packing in endoscopic endonasal approach to the skull base surgery (EESBS) has not yet been unanimously accepted and no consensus or guidelines on its use exist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey containing 10 questions about indications, management advantages, and pitfalls of the use of anterior nasal packing in EESBS was created by using an online open-source tool (SurveyMonkey). The questionnaire was sent to 39 Italian neurosurgical departments, which routinely adopt the endoscopic endonasal approach. RESULTS: Almost half of 39 selected centers (19; 48.7%) answered our survey. The main results can be summarized as 1) anterior nasal packing after EESBS is considered useful by 84% of participants, 2) prevention of epistaxis is the principal indication for anterior nasal packing, 3) the type of approach and skull base reconstruction influence the use of anterior nasal packing, and 4) nasal discomfort is considered the principal negative aspect of nasal packing. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified that anterior nasal packing is commonly adopted in certain conditions, namely when extensive nasal dissection is performed. Furthermore, the choice to adopt or not the anterior nasal packing should be tailored taking in account specific conditions, such as acromegaly and Cushing disease. It represents an important factor in reducing postoperative sinonasal complications of EESB.

Modified Retrograde Nasal Intubation: A New Airway Technique and Devices.

Nasotracheal intubation remains an underused but invaluable technique for securely managing the airway during oral and maxillofacial surgery. In this article, we present a modified clinical technique that allows for the potential introduction into clinical practice of 2 new airway devices: a nasal laryngeal mask airway and an interchangeable oral/nasal endotracheal tube. We hypothesize that with the use of proper techniques, these devices can add new and safer alternatives for securing an airway by the nasal route. The advantage of this novel technique is that the airway is secured by the oral route prior to performing a modified retrograde nasal intubation, eliminating the danger of profuse epistaxis precipitating a "cannot intubate, cannot ventilate" scenario. In addition, the design and materials used in the components of the devices may minimize trauma. The authors aim to inform clinicians about the indications, physical characteristics, and insertion/removal techniques related to these new devices.

Safety of (rhino)septoplasty without nasal packing in routine ENT practice.

PURPOSE: This retrospective study assesses the risks and benefits linked to the non-use of nasal packing after a (rhino)septoplasty, compared with post-operative care with anterior nasal packing such as Merocel®. METHODS: Complication rates observed during the first week after surgery were compared between groups with and without use of classic nasal packing over a large sample of 534 patients, who had undergone either a closed or open procedure, with bilateral turbinoplasty, and with or without osteotomies. Complications listed include epistaxis, haematoma, impetiginization, septal perforation, hyperalgesia, and dyspnoea. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between the group with and without packing regarding the immediate post-operative complications of epistaxis (4.4% of the cases with nasal packing versus 3% without, p = 0.918) and impetiginization (3% of the cases with nasal packing versus 4.2% without, p = 0.478). The technique used, as well as any osteotomies performed, had no impact on the results. CONCLUSION: Non-use of nasal packing after a (rhino)septoplasty is a safe alternative to classic post-operative methods. Provided that there is a rigorous surgical technique and strict clinical control, it should be used as a principal technique in any routine practice due to its safety for patients immediately post-surgery.

Effect of bevel direction on the tracheal tube pathway during nasotracheal intubation: A randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: For nasotracheal intubation, the nasal pathway between the inferior turbinate and hard palate (lower pathway) is preferred for patient safety. However, selecting the lower pathway can be challenging because passage of the tube through the nasal pathway is usually performed blindly. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether facing the bevel of the tracheal tube in the cephalad direction of the patient could help in advancing the tracheal tube through the lower pathway during nasotracheal intubation. DESIGN: A randomised, blinded trial. SETTING: SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea from January 2019 to March 2020. PATIENTS: Sixty-eight adult patients undergoing oromaxillary surgeries were enrolled in this study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly allocated to undergo nasotracheal intubation with the bevel of the tube facing the cephalad direction (intervention group) or to the left (conventional group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The effects of bevel direction on the pathway of the tube in the nasal cavity, and the incidence of epistaxis were evaluated by fibreoptic bronchoscopy. RESULTS: The success rate of the tracheal tube passing through the lower pathway was significantly higher in the intervention group than the conventional group (79.4 vs. 55.9%, relative risk 1.421, 95% CI 1.007 to 2.005, P = 0.038). The incidence of epistaxis was also lower in the intervention group than in the conventional group (41.2 vs. 73.5%, relative risk 0.560, 95% CI 0.357 to 0.878, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Facing the bevel of the tracheal tube in the cephalad direction of the patient facilitated selection of the lower pathway and reduced the incidence of epistaxis during nasotracheal intubation in patients undergoing oromaxillary surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03740620.

Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia: systemic therapies, guidelines, and an evolving standard of care.

Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) management is evolving because of the emergence and development of antiangiogenic therapies to eliminate bleeding telangiectasias and achieve hemostasis. This progress is reflected in recent clinical recommendations published in the Second International Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of HHT, in which systemic therapies including antiangiogenics and antifibrinolytics are now recommended as standard treatment options for bleeding. This review highlights the new recommendations especially relevant to hematologists in managing bleeding, anticoagulation, and anemia in patients with HHT.

Total control introducer-aided nasotracheal intubation using a videolaryngoscope in an anticipated difficult airway: a novel technique.

Nasotracheal intubation can be challenging due to undesirable incidence of nasal bleeding and soft tissue injuries. The bleeding can obscure glottis visualisation, increase the total intubation time, the risk of aspiration and oxygen desaturation. Total control introducer is a new airway adjunct with a flexible shaft, articulating tip and an intuitive depth control system, which can be used in difficult airway scenarios to improve the success of nasal intubations.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Nosebleed (Epistaxis).

OBJECTIVE: Nosebleed, also known as epistaxis, is a common problem that occurs at some point in at least 60% of people in the United States. While the majority of nosebleeds are limited in severity and duration, about 6% of people who experience nosebleeds will seek medical attention. For the purposes of this guideline, we define the target patient with a nosebleed as a patient with bleeding from the nostril, nasal cavity, or nasopharynx that is sufficient to warrant medical advice or care. This includes bleeding that is severe, persistent, and/or recurrent, as well as bleeding that impacts a patient's quality of life. Interventions for nosebleeds range from self-treatment and home remedies to more intensive procedural interventions in medical offices, emergency departments, hospitals, and operating rooms. Epistaxis has been estimated to account for 0.5% of all emergency department visits and up to one-third of all otolaryngology-related emergency department encounters. Inpatient hospitalization for aggressive treatment of severe nosebleeds has been reported in 0.2% of patients with nosebleeds. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in the management of nosebleeds and to create clear and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specific goals of this guideline are to promote best practices, reduce unjustified variations in care of patients with nosebleeds, improve health outcomes, and minimize the potential harms of nosebleeds or interventions to treat nosebleeds. The target patient for the guideline is any individual aged ≥3 years with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or seeks medical advice. The target audience of this guideline is clinicians who evaluate and treat patients with nosebleed. This includes primary care providers such as family medicine physicians, internists, pediatricians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. It also includes specialists such as emergency medicine providers, otolaryngologists, interventional radiologists/neuroradiologists and neurointerventionalists, hematologists, and cardiologists. The setting for this guideline includes any site of evaluation and treatment for a patient with nosebleed, including ambulatory medical sites, the emergency department, the inpatient hospital, and even remote outpatient encounters with phone calls and telemedicine. Outcomes to be considered for patients with nosebleed include control of acute bleeding, prevention of recurrent episodes of nasal bleeding, complications of treatment modalities, and accuracy of diagnostic measures. This guideline addresses the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleed. It focuses on nosebleeds that commonly present to clinicians via phone calls, office visits, and emergency room encounters. This guideline discusses first-line treatments such as nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery. It also addresses more complex epistaxis management, which includes the use of endoscopic arterial ligation and interventional radiology procedures. Management options for 2 special groups of patients-patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome and patients taking medications that inhibit coagulation and/or platelet function-are included in this guideline. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide for managing patients with nosebleed. In this context, the purpose is to define useful actions for clinicians, generalists, and specialists from a variety of disciplines to improve quality of care. Conversely, the statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) At the time of initial contact, the clinician should distinguish the nosebleed patient who requires prompt management from the patient who does not. (2) The clinician should treat active bleeding for patients in need of prompt management with firm sustained compression to the lower third of the nose, with or without the assistance of the patient or caregiver, for 5 minutes or longer. (3a) For patients in whom bleeding precludes identification of a bleeding site despite nasal compression, the clinician should treat ongoing active bleeding with nasal packing. (3b) The clinician should use resorbable packing for patients with a suspected bleeding disorder or for patients who are using anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications. (4) The clinician should educate the patient who undergoes nasal packing about the type of packing placed, timing of and plan for removal of packing (if not resorbable), postprocedure care, and any signs or symptoms that would warrant prompt reassessment. (5) The clinician should document factors that increase the frequency or severity of bleeding for any patient with a nosebleed, including personal or family history of bleeding disorders, use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, or intranasal drug use. (6) The clinician should perform anterior rhinoscopy to identify a source of bleeding after removal of any blood clot (if present) for patients with nosebleeds. (7a) The clinician should perform, or should refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to identify the site of bleeding and guide further management in patients with recurrent nasal bleeding, despite prior treatment with packing or cautery, or with recurrent unilateral nasal bleeding. (8) The clinician should treat patients with an identified site of bleeding with an appropriate intervention, which may include one or more of the following: topical vasoconstrictors, nasal cautery, and moisturizing or lubricating agents. (9) When nasal cautery is chosen for treatment, the clinician should anesthetize the bleeding site and restrict application of cautery only to the active or suspected site(s) of bleeding. (10) The clinician should evaluate, or refer to a clinician who can evaluate, candidacy for surgical arterial ligation or endovascular embolization for patients with persistent or recurrent bleeding not controlled by packing or nasal cauterization. (11) In the absence of life-threatening bleeding, the clinician should initiate first-line treatments prior to transfusion, reversal of anticoagulation, or withdrawal of anticoagulation/antiplatelet medications for patients using these medications. (12) The clinician should assess, or refer to a specialist who can assess, the presence of nasal telangiectasias and/or oral mucosal telangiectasias in patients who have a history of recurrent bilateral nosebleeds or a family history of recurrent nosebleeds to diagnose hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome. (13) The clinician should educate patients with nosebleeds and their caregivers about preventive measures for nosebleeds, home treatment for nosebleeds, and indications to seek additional medical care. (14) The clinician or designee should document the outcome of intervention within 30 days or document transition of care in patients who had a nosebleed treated with nonresorbable packing, surgery, or arterial ligation/embolization. The policy level for the following recommendation, about examination of the nasal cavity and nasopharynx using nasal endoscopy, was an option: (7b) The clinician may perform, or may refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to examine the nasal cavity and nasopharynx in patients with epistaxis that is difficult to control or when there is concern for unrecognized pathology contributing to epistaxis.

Effects of glove finger- versus lidocaine-soaked nasal packing after endoscopic nasal surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Nasal packing is a common but unpleasant procedure in patients who undergo endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The aim of this study was to assess whether a glove-finger pack strategy would reduce pain compared to lidocaine-soaked packs after ESS. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial enrolling 120 consecutive patients affected by chronic rhinosinusitis, who underwent bilateral ESS. At the end of surgery 62 subjects received 10 cm non-absorbable pack soaked with 5 mL of 2%-lidocaine solution and 58 received a 10 cm non-absorbable pack coated with a latex free glove finger soaked with saline solution. Data concerning pain were collected using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale at post-operative hours 1, 4, 8, and 16 and at pack removal (24 h ± 15 min). All post-operative analgesic rescue doses were registered. Also, bleeding was reported. RESULTS: The mean VAS score during pack-removal was significantly lower in glove-finger group than in the lidocaine group (3.22 ± 2.16 vs 4.89 ± 2.90, p = 0.0012). There was no statistically significant difference between re-soaking lidocaine-soaked-packs with saline solution or lidocaine at pack removal time (p = 0.42). CONCLUSION: Glove-finger nasal pack seems to provide better pain control after ESS, when compared with lidocaine-soaked pack, especially at pack removal time.