Stangerup S E, Dommerby H O, Lau T
øre-naese-halsafdelingen, Amtssygehuset i Gentofte.
Ugeskr Laeger. 1996 Jul 1;158(27):3932-4.
Tamponade treatment in epistaxis is painful and the patient needs hospitalisation. Irrigation with hot water was introduced as a treatment of epistaxis 100 years ago. This study compares the two treatments with respect to effect, recurrence, pain, and length of hospital stay. Forty-four consecutive patients with posterior epistaxis were randomized to receive treatment with either hot water (HWI) or tamponade. In the group of patients treated with HWI, the treatment had to be stopped in seven patients (33%) because of lack of cooperation; nine patients (43%) could be discharged from hospital with no need for further treatment, whereas five patients (24%) had recurrent epistaxis requiring additional tamponade treatment. Among patients treated with tamponade, 14 patients (61%) could be discharged from hospital with no need for further treatment, while nine patients (39%) had recurrent epistaxis requiring additional tamponade treatment. Compared with the tamponade treatment, HWI is almost as effective, the hospital stay is shorter, and the treatment is significantly less painful.
