ArticleTurkish archives of otorhinolaryngology2025
Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Cauterization Under Local Anesthesia for Posterior Epistaxis: A Prospective Cohort Study of its Tolerability and Efficacy.
Article in Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology, 2025. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the tolerability and efficacy of endoscopic sphenopalatine artery cauterization (ESPAC) under local anesthesia (LA) in managing posterior epistaxis. Methods: It was a prospective, cohort study, conducted in the Otorhinolaryngology Department of a tertiary-level hospital. Patients aged 18 years or above with posterior epistaxis who underwent ESPAC under LA were included. The tolerability of the procedure was reflected by the intraoperative pain measured using an 11-point numerical rating scale while the rebleed rate up to three months postoperatively denoted its efficacy. Results: A total of 35 patients, 23 males and 12 females, aged 31 to 86 years (mean 57.42 ± 12.94) were included. Five out of 35 (14.2%) patients needed additional procedures besides ESPAC; 82.8% (29/35) had pterygopalatine fossa (PPF) block before ESPAC. The numerical rating scale reflecting the intraoperative pain ranged from 1 to 7 with a mean of 3.6 (± 1.7). The mean score was slightly higher in females than in males. Similarly, those who did not receive PPF block had a higher mean score than those who received it; however, the differences were not statistically significant. Meanwhile, the mean score was the same (3.6) irrespective of any additional procedure besides ESPAC. Amongst the 30 patients who completed the three-month follow-up, two patients rebled, so the overall success rate amounted to 93.3% in three months. Conclusion: Based on the outcome of this study, ESPAC under LA for posterior epistaxis is well tolerated and is as efficacious as under general anesthesia.
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.