Early Operative Intervention versus Conventional Treatment in Epistaxis: Randomized Prospective Trial

Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Ligation in Posterior Epistaxis: Retrospective Analysis of 30 Patients

“…In the application of posterior nasal packing in posterior epistaxis, the probability of recurrent bleeding is between 26% and 52% and the rate of success is lower than TESPAL (10). In comparison to posterior packing, TESPAL emerges as a method that shortens the length of hospitalization, lowers cost and increases the quality of life (9,15,16). The requirement of anterior nasal packing after the application of TESPAL is another matter of discussion.…”

Recent Trends in Epistaxis Management in the United States

“…Intuitively, it seems that this should translate into an increased length of stay. However, prior studies, [16][17][18] including one small prospective study, 18 have…”

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Ligation vs Arterial Embolization for Intractable Epistaxis

“…Despite these methodologic strengths, there are several limitations that should be considered when interpreting these Moshaver et al, 2 Miller et al, 13 Au and Rudmikl our reference case did not influence the economic conclusions, we performed a sensitivity analysis to change these parameters, and there was no change. Third, to our knowledge, there have been no large RCTs comparing TESPAL and embolization; therefore, there will inherently be larger degrees of data uncertainty in the data entered into this model because it was derived from nonrandomized prospective or retrospective studies.…”

“…The traditional treatment strategy of posterior nasal packing has been largely replaced by the more effective and less morbid techniques of transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) [1][2][3] and endovascular arterial embolization. [4][5][6] Furthermore, a recent study by Dedhia et al 7 suggested that TESPAL is the most cost-effective strategy compared with posterior nasal packing.…”