No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Peri-operative complications of sphenopalatine artery ligation: a 10-year series from two secondary care centres
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2022
Abstract
Background
There is currently limited evidence regarding the potential complications of sphenopalatine artery ligation. The post-operative outcomes at two secondary care centres over a 10-year period were reviewed.
Methods
A retrospective review was undertaken of patients undergoing emergency and elective sphenopalatine artery ligation between January 2011 and January 2021. Their demographics, peri-operative care and post-operative outcomes were recorded. The median follow-up time was 54 days (range, 0–2657 days).
Results
Ninety-one patients were included. Four patients (4.4 per cent) had a septal perforation at post-operative review. Nineteen patients (20.9 per cent) had post-operative bleeding that extended their in-patient stay, with five patients (5.5 per cent) requiring revision surgery. Pre-operative non-dissolvable nasal packing was used a median of 1 time (range, 0–8 times).
Conclusion
Further research on outcomes of sphenopalatine artery ligation is needed. Pre-operative non-dissolvable nasal packing, concurrent septal surgical procedures, surgical techniques, and co-morbidities such as hypertension represent potential confounding factors that could not be further assessed in this small, retrospective study.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Main Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED
Footnotes
Dr H M Yip takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper
References
National ENT Trainee Research Network. Epistaxis 2016: national audit of management. J Laryngol Otol 2017;131:1131–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellinas, A, Jervis, P, Kenyon, G, Flood, LM. Endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation for acute idiopathic epistaxis. Do anatomical variation and a limited evidence base raise questions regarding its place in management? J Laryngol Otol 2017;131:290–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdelkader, M, Leong, SC, White, PS. Endoscopic control of the sphenopalatine artery for epistaxis: long-term results. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:759–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malcomson, KG. The surgical management of massive epistaxis. J Laryngol Otol 1963;77:299–314CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nouraei, SA, Maani, T, Hajioff, D, Saleh, HA, Mackay, IS. Outcome of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery occlusion for intractable epistaxis: a 10-year experience. Laryngoscope 2007;117:1452–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitamura, T, Takenaka, Y, Takeda, K, Oya, R, Ashida, N, Shimizu, K et al. Sphenopalatine artery surgery for refractory idiopathic epistaxis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope 2019;129:1731–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dedhia, RC, Desai, SS, Smith, KJ, Lee, S, Schaitkin, BM, Snyderman, CH et al. Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation versus nasal packing as first-line treatment for posterior epistaxis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2013;3:563–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDermott, AM, O'Cathain, E, Carey, BW, O'Sullivan, P, Sheahan, P. Sphenopalatine artery ligation for epistaxis: factors influencing outcome and impact of timing of surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;154:547–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
George, A, Smatanova, K, Joshi, H, Jervis, S, Oluwole, M. Sphenopalatine, anterior ethmoid and internal maxillary artery intervention in the management of refractory epistaxis: their efficacy in 25 patients. Clin Otolaryngol 2012;37:321–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elsheikh, E, El-Anwar, MW. Septal perforation and bilateral partial middle turbinate necrosis after bilateral sphenopalatine artery ligation. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:1025–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walen, SG, Rudmik, LR, Lipkewitch, S, Dixon, E, Mechor, B. Training, practice, and referral patterns in rhinologic surgery: survey of otolaryngologists. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;39:297–303Google ScholarPubMed
Daudia, A, Jaiswal, V, Jones, NS. Guidelines for the management of idiopathic epistaxis in adults: how we do it. Clin Otolaryngol 2008;33:618–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakhani, R, Syed, I, Qureishi, A, Bleach, N. The Wexham Criteria: defining severe epistaxis to select patients requiring sphenopalatine artery ligation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2013;270:2039–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spielmann, PM, Barnes, ML, White, PS. Controversies in the specialist management of adult epistaxis: an evidence-based review. Clin Otolaryngol 2012;37:382–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howe, DJ, Wazir, U, Skinner, DW. Outcomes of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation for epistaxis: a five-year series from a single institution. Ear Nose Throat J 2012;91:70–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tessler, I, Warman, M, Sharav, S, Rotem Batito, H, Halperin, D, Cohen, O. The role of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation in the management of persistent epistaxis - a 15-year single-center experience. Am J Otolaryngol 2020;41:102715CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basnet, M, Ghimire, B, Shrestha, A, Aryal, GR. Success rate of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation for the management of refractory posterior epistaxis patients in a tertiary care hospital: a descriptive cross-sectional study. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc 2020;58:1056–60Google Scholar
Cetiner, H, Cavusoglu, I, Duzer, S. The effect of smoking on perforation development and healing after septoplasty. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2017;31:63–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwany, S, Kamel, T, Mekhamer, A. Pneumatic nasal catheters: advantages and drawbacks. J Laryngol Otol 1986;100:641–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moorthy, R, Anand, R, Prior, M, Scott, PM. Inferior turbinate necrosis following endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:159–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed