[Nasal packing in posterior epistaxis. Comparison of two methods]

Area of Science:

• Otolaryngology
• Emergency Medicine

Background:

• Epistaxis, or nosebleeds, is a common condition requiring management.
• Refractory posterior epistaxis necessitates nasal packing for hemostasis.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the tolerance and efficiency of two posterior nasal packing systems.
• Evaluate inflatable pneumatic systems versus traditional gauze packing for epistaxis.

Main Methods:

• A prospective, longitudinal study compared a bi-chamber pneumatic inflation system (n=105) with gauze packing (n=47).
• Tolerance assessed via pain scales and analgesia need.
• Efficiency evaluated by re-bleeding rates, transfusions, and side effects.

Main Results:

• Inflatable packing was faster to place and less painful.
• Gauze packing demonstrated a lower incidence of re-bleeding (17% vs. 26%) and fewer transfusions (15% vs. 18%).
• Gauze packing resulted in lower sanitary costs and fewer complications.

Conclusions:

• Traditional gauze packing for posterior epistaxis offers a higher success rate.
• Gauze packing leads to fewer local injuries and reduced healthcare costs compared to inflatable balloon systems.