ArticleCureus2026
Impact of Floseal and NasoPore in Managing Epistaxis in the Emergency Department: A Quality Improvement Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpistaxis is a common ear, nose, throat (ENT) presentation in the emergency department (ED), with the majority of the population having experienced an episode during their lifetime and required hospitalization. Like many district general hospitals (DGHs) in the country, St Peter's Hospital does not offer adult inpatient or out-of-hours emergency cover for ENT, necessitating patients who require intranasal packing with a Rapid Rhino® (Smith & Nephew, Hull, UK) to be transferred to another hospital for assessment and admission, with most transfers being via ambulance. Apart from being resource-heavy, both the procedure itself and the prolonged stay in ED awaiting transport are a distressing experience for the patient. Therefore, the present quality improvement analysis was performed for the assessment of the effectiveness of Floseal® (Baxter Healthcare, Deerfield, IL, USA) and NasoPore® (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA), a bioresorbable material for epistaxis.
methodsWe introduced the revised Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) ENT UK guidelines for epistaxis management in our department. Two Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were conducted in parallel. To assess the patient experience, a feedback form was designed with particular focus on pain score using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 16 (Released 2007; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States) was used for descriptive analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed to compare the outcomes with rapid rhino nasal packing. A telephonic follow-up on days 2 and 5 was organized to document any adverse features.
resultsThe use of bioresorbable nasal packing among 60 patients demonstrated a clear benefit over the conventional practice of a non-absorbable packing, like Rapid Rhino. It reduced the length of stay (LOS) in ED and allowed the patients to go home with self-care instructions. In addition to much better patient comfort and tolerability (drop in pain score from 7 to 2 on VAS), this intervention also had a significant cost-saving impact with more than 65% cost reduction.
conclusionFloseal bioresorbable material can be used as a replacement for traditional nasal packing, as it was found to be more effective and cost-effective.
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.