Italian
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Annals of Emergency Medicine 2005-Feb

Comparison of nasal tampons for the treatment of epistaxis in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.

Solo gli utenti registrati possono tradurre articoli
Entra registrati
Il collegamento viene salvato negli appunti
Adam J Singer
Michelle Blanda
Kerry Cronin
Melina LoGiudice-Khwaja
Janet Gulla
Jill Bradshaw
Arnold Katz

Parole chiave

Astratto

OBJECTIVE

Nasal tampons are commonly used to stop bleeding, yet their insertion is painful. We compare the pain of insertion and removal of 2 commonly used nasal tampons.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled trial in 1 urban and 1 suburban emergency department (ED). Subjects were a convenience sample of adult ED patients with active epistaxis requiring insertion of a nasal tampon, regardless of coagulation status. Pretreatment of the nasal mucosa was performed using an aerosolized lidocaine-Neo-Synephrine combination. Patients were randomized to tamponade with a single Rapid Rhino or Rhino Rocket nasal tampon. The pain and ease of insertion and success of tamponade were recorded. Tampon removal was performed after 1 to 3 days, and the pain and ease of removal, as well as the presence of any bleeding, were noted. Patients rated pain of insertion and removal on a previously validated 100-mm visual analogue pain scale (100=worst pain). Physician ease of insertion and removal was recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. Continuous data are presented as means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We evaluated 40 patients evenly distributed between study groups and sites. Median patient age was 61 years (interquartile range 48 to 79 years), and 33% were female patients. Coagulopathy was present in 10 (25%) patients. Baseline characteristics were similar in both treatment groups. The mean pain of insertion of the Rapid Rhino (30 mm, 95% CI 18 to 41 mm) was significantly less than with the Rhino Rocket (48 mm, 95% CI 34 to 61 mm; mean difference 18 mm, 95% CI 1 to 35 mm). The mean pain of removal of the Rapid Rhino (11 mm, 95% CI 1 to 21 mm) was also lower than with the Rhino Rocket (23 mm, 95% CI 13 to 33 mm; mean difference 12 mm, 95% CI -1 to 25 mm). The Rapid Rhino was also easier to insert and remove and had a lower incidence of recurrent bleeding after removal than the Rhino Rocket. Rates of successful tamponade were similar in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The Rapid Rhino nasal tampon is less painful to insert and easier to remove than the Rhino Rocket, whereas both are similarly effective at stopping nosebleeds.

Unisciti alla nostra
pagina facebook

Il database di erbe medicinali più completo supportato dalla scienza

  • Funziona in 55 lingue
  • Cure a base di erbe sostenute dalla scienza
  • Riconoscimento delle erbe per immagine
  • Mappa GPS interattiva - tagga le erbe sul luogo (disponibile a breve)
  • Leggi le pubblicazioni scientifiche relative alla tua ricerca
  • Cerca le erbe medicinali in base ai loro effetti
  • Organizza i tuoi interessi e tieniti aggiornato sulle notizie di ricerca, sperimentazioni cliniche e brevetti

Digita un sintomo o una malattia e leggi le erbe che potrebbero aiutare, digita un'erba e osserva le malattie ei sintomi contro cui è usata.
* Tutte le informazioni si basano su ricerche scientifiche pubblicate

Google Play badgeApp Store badge