ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Endovascular treatment for posterior epistaxis: should it still be considered a last-resort option? A literature review.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Posterior epistaxis is a common otorhinolaryngological emergency that often presents a clinical challenge and typically needs aggressive management. Endovascular therapy has emerged as a strong alternative to traditional approaches. However, it is still considered a last-resort option for intractable cases in most clinical guidelines and among many physicians managing this condition. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide a comprehensive overview of posterior epistaxis, with a particular focus on its vascular anatomy and the role of endovascular treatment. Methods: Articles were retrieved from MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science using a semi-systematic search strategy. Results: Posterior epistaxis is a challenging condition due to its variable etiologies and numerous risk factors. Effective treatment requires careful consideration of the region's complex and variable vascular anatomy, including potentially dangerous anastomoses. The results indicate that endovascular treatment is a feasible and safe option; however, it should always be preceded by a thorough angiographic assessment to identify the exact vascular anatomy and site of bleeding. This also helps to identify potentially dangerous communications around the skull base, where inadvertent embolization can lead to complications such as stroke or blindness. Conclusion: Posterior epistaxis is a complex condition that requires a comprehensive approach. Performing an angiography before treatment can help pinpoint the bleeding site, as well as identify any dangerous communications. Endovascular treatment could be a viable and safe option in cases of posterior epistaxis and should not be reserved solely as a last resort.
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.