Stangerup S E, Dommerby H, Lau T
Department of Otolaryngology, Gentofte University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Rhinology. 1996 Mar;34(1):18-20.
The commonly-used tamponade treatment for posterior epistaxis is painful and the patient may need hospitalization for several days. Irrigation with water of 50 degrees C was introduced as a treatment for posterior epistaxis more than 100 years ago. This study compares the two treatment modalities 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 (21 patients) or tamponade (23 patients). In the group of patients treated with hot water, the treatment had to be stopped in seven patients (33%) because of lack of cooperation; nine patients (43%) could be dismissed from hospital with no need for further treatment, whereas five patients (24%) had recurrent epistaxis requiring additional tamponade treatment. Among the patients treated with tamponade, 14 patients (61%) could be dismissed from hospital with no need for further treatment, while nine patients (39%) had recurrent epistaxis requiring additional tamponade treatment. The median stay in hospital was five days for the group treated with hot water, and six days for the group treated with tamponade. Compared to the tamponade treatment, hot-water irrigation is almost as effective, the hospital stay is shorter, and the treatment is significantly less painful.
