Wirach Chitsuthipakorn1,2, Kachorn Seresirikachorn3,4, Dichapong Kanjanawasee3,4, Kornkiat Snidvongs3,4. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, Sawanpracharak Hospital, Ministry of Public Health, Nakhon Sawan, Thailand. drwirach@gmail.com. 2. Center of Excellence in Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Rajavithi Hospital, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand. drwirach@gmail.com. 3. Department of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 4. Endoscopic Nasal and Sinus Surgery Excellence Center, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESPAL) is known as an effective treatment for posterior epistaxis. Anatomical variations of the intranasal branching may result in long operative time and possible inadequate cauterization. A modification of ESPAL by cauterization at the sphenopalatine foramen (SPF), has been performed by our group. Our study assessed the clinical benefit of endoscopic sphenopalatine foramen cauterization (ESFC) and compared it to ESPAL. METHOD: A retrospective study was conducted. Patients who received ESFC for posterior epistaxis from 2016 to 2018 at a tertiary hospital were recruited. Middle meatal antrostomy was done. After ethmoidal crest was identified and nipped, pterygopalatine fossa was entered through the SPF. Sphenopalatine artery (SPA) and its branches within the SPF were cauterized without identification of any SPA distal branches in the nasal cavity. Patients receiving conventional ESPAL by the same surgeon were recruited and compared as control. Patients were followed-up for 3 months. Success rate, operative time, and complication were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were identified. Recurrent epistaxis was absent in 90.0% and 100% of patients receiving ESPAL (9/10 patients) and ESFC (24/24 patients) respectively, p = 0.294. Median operative time was 115 and 60 min, respectively, p < 0.001. Ipsilateral hard palatal or anterior palatal numbness were found in one and three patients, respectively. All resolved spontaneously within 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: ESFC is effective in treating posterior epistaxis. It requires significantly less amount of time while the success rate was comparable to conventional ESPAL.
PURPOSE: Endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (ESPAL) is known as an effective treatment for posterior epistaxis. Anatomical variations of the intranasal branching may result in long operative time and possible inadequate cauterization. A modification of ESPAL by cauterization at the sphenopalatine foramen (SPF), has been performed by our group. Our study assessed the clinical benefit of endoscopic sphenopalatine foramen cauterization (ESFC) and compared it to ESPAL. METHOD: A retrospective study was conducted. Patients who received ESFC for posterior epistaxis from 2016 to 2018 at a tertiary hospital were recruited. Middle meatal antrostomy was done. After ethmoidal crest was identified and nipped, pterygopalatine fossa was entered through the SPF. Sphenopalatine artery (SPA) and its branches within the SPF were cauterized without identification of any SPA distal branches in the nasal cavity. Patients receiving conventional ESPAL by the same surgeon were recruited and compared as control. Patients were followed-up for 3 months. Success rate, operative time, and complication were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were identified. Recurrent epistaxis was absent in 90.0% and 100% of patients receiving ESPAL (9/10 patients) and ESFC (24/24 patients) respectively, p = 0.294. Median operative time was 115 and 60 min, respectively, p < 0.001. Ipsilateral hard palatal or anterior palatal numbness were found in one and three patients, respectively. All resolved spontaneously within 2 weeks. CONCLUSION:ESFC is effective in treating posterior epistaxis. It requires significantly less amount of time while the success rate was comparable to conventional ESPAL.