ArticleF1000Research2019
Case Report: Massive epistaxis from juvenile angiofibroma in an adolescent with severe haemophilia A.
Article in F1000Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epistaxis may be profuse in individuals with normal bleeding parameters, but in an individual with haemophilia, it may be life-threatening. It is even more dangerous when epistaxis is caused by an undetected concomitant juvenile angiofibroma, and only one such case has been reported in the English literature. We report another case, of an 18-year-old Filipino adolescent with severe haemophilia A who was referred for repeated massive epistaxis. The epistaxis had been attributed to his haemophilia and managed with nasal packing, multiple blood transfusions and Factor VIII administration. After two years of unsuccessful management, nasal endoscopy was performed for the first time, revealing an intranasal mass. Imaging showed a right intranasal vascular tumour supplied mainly by the right sphenopalatine artery. He subsequently underwent preoperative embolization and endoscopic excision of the tumour with Factor VIII transfused pre-, intra-, and post-operatively, and recombinant Factor VII added post-operatively. Final histopathology was consistent with juvenile angiofibroma. There has been no nasal obstruction or recurrence of epistaxis seven years since the surgery. Clinicians should be more meticulous in assessing epistaxis in any patient with a bleeding disorder and investigate more subtle symptoms such as nasal obstruction. Verification of the source by direct visualization and ancillary diagnostic techniques (such as imaging) when indicated should be the standard of care for all patients presenting with epistaxis, whether or not a concomitant bleeding disorder exists. A high index of suspicion for juvenile angiofibroma should be maintained in adolescent males with epistaxis and nasal obstruction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.