英国后路鼻出血的处理,一项全国性调查

A. Mowat, P. Meakin, S. Anastasiadou, R. Bidaye, S. Anari
{"title":"英国后路鼻出血的处理,一项全国性调查","authors":"A. Mowat, P. Meakin, S. Anastasiadou, R. Bidaye, S. Anari","doi":"10.4193/rhinol/21.056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Posterior bleeds account for 5% of epistaxis. The patient cohort is often elderly and has significant co-morbidities. Such cases have been managed historically with urinary catheters, held in place with umbilical clips. Recently bespoke, double balloon, posterior packs have been utilised. The treatments remain in clinical equipoise with no gold standard or clear national guideline. Methodology: A ten question survey was sent out through www.surveymonkey.com. Attempts were made to contact all Trusts in the United Kingdom via the ENT on call service. A comparison of treatment costs was made. Results: 112 responses have been received. 54% of respondents reported a preference for bespoke posterior pack insertion, only 12% preferred catheters. Twice as many respondents have seen complications from urinary catheters: 14% vs 29%. The availability of posterior packs is inconsistent: 30% of respondents were not aware of the packs or reported them unavailable in their hospital. Conclusions: This survey provides the first comparison of the techniques in the United Kingdom. Bespoke packs have a lower complication rate and are preferred by ENT clinicians on the front line of patient care. We recommend that all UK trusts should stock posterior packs which should be used as first line treatment for cases of posterior epistaxis.","PeriodicalId":74737,"journal":{"name":"Rhinology online","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The management of posterior epistaxis in the United Kingdom, a national survey\",\"authors\":\"A. Mowat, P. Meakin, S. Anastasiadou, R. Bidaye, S. Anari\",\"doi\":\"10.4193/rhinol/21.056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Posterior bleeds account for 5% of epistaxis. The patient cohort is often elderly and has significant co-morbidities. Such cases have been managed historically with urinary catheters, held in place with umbilical clips. Recently bespoke, double balloon, posterior packs have been utilised. The treatments remain in clinical equipoise with no gold standard or clear national guideline. Methodology: A ten question survey was sent out through www.surveymonkey.com. Attempts were made to contact all Trusts in the United Kingdom via the ENT on call service. A comparison of treatment costs was made. Results: 112 responses have been received. 54% of respondents reported a preference for bespoke posterior pack insertion, only 12% preferred catheters. Twice as many respondents have seen complications from urinary catheters: 14% vs 29%. The availability of posterior packs is inconsistent: 30% of respondents were not aware of the packs or reported them unavailable in their hospital. Conclusions: This survey provides the first comparison of the techniques in the United Kingdom. Bespoke packs have a lower complication rate and are preferred by ENT clinicians on the front line of patient care. We recommend that all UK trusts should stock posterior packs which should be used as first line treatment for cases of posterior epistaxis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rhinology online\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rhinology online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4193/rhinol/21.056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhinology online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4193/rhinol/21.056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:鼻出血中后部出血占5%。患者队列通常是老年人,并且有显著的合并症。这类病例在历史上一直使用导尿管,用脐带夹固定。最近使用了定制的双气囊后装。这些治疗方法仍处于临床平衡状态,没有黄金标准或明确的国家指导方针。方法:通过www.surveymonkey.com发送了一份十个问题的调查。试图通过耳鼻喉科的电话服务联系英国的所有信托机构。对治疗费用进行了比较。结果:收到112份答复。54%的受访者表示更喜欢定制后包插入,只有12%的人更喜欢导管。两倍多的受访者看到导尿管并发症:14%对29%。后部包的可用性不一致:30%的受访者不知道这些包,或报告他们的医院没有这些包。结论:这项调查首次对英国的技术进行了比较。定制包并发症发生率较低,是耳鼻喉科一线临床医生的首选。我们建议所有英国信托机构都应储备后部鼻出血包,作为后部鼻出血病例的一线治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The management of posterior epistaxis in the United Kingdom, a national survey
Background: Posterior bleeds account for 5% of epistaxis. The patient cohort is often elderly and has significant co-morbidities. Such cases have been managed historically with urinary catheters, held in place with umbilical clips. Recently bespoke, double balloon, posterior packs have been utilised. The treatments remain in clinical equipoise with no gold standard or clear national guideline. Methodology: A ten question survey was sent out through www.surveymonkey.com. Attempts were made to contact all Trusts in the United Kingdom via the ENT on call service. A comparison of treatment costs was made. Results: 112 responses have been received. 54% of respondents reported a preference for bespoke posterior pack insertion, only 12% preferred catheters. Twice as many respondents have seen complications from urinary catheters: 14% vs 29%. The availability of posterior packs is inconsistent: 30% of respondents were not aware of the packs or reported them unavailable in their hospital. Conclusions: This survey provides the first comparison of the techniques in the United Kingdom. Bespoke packs have a lower complication rate and are preferred by ENT clinicians on the front line of patient care. We recommend that all UK trusts should stock posterior packs which should be used as first line treatment for cases of posterior epistaxis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
COVID-19 control protocol for rhinologic surgery Trends in dupilumab persistence among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps Dupilumab as an emerging treatment for refractory allergic fungal rhinosinusitis: a case series and literature review Capturing qualitative olfactory dysfunction with PARPHAIT: the parosmia, phantosmia, and anosmia test Prevalence of smell and taste dysfunction in different clinical severity groups of COVID-19 patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1