Abstract
Background
Transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) and selective embolization both provide excellent treatment success rate in the management of intractable epistaxis. Few long-term studies comparing these approaches have been previously published. Recommendations often present these techniques as alternatives, but there is no clear consensus.
Objective
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of sphenopalatine artery ligation versus embolization to control intractable epistaxis.
Methods
We performed a retrospective study including all patients referred to our tertiary medical center for severe epistaxis and treated by surgical ligation and/or embolization. The patients were classified into 2 groups: those who underwent TESPAL only and those who underwent endovascular embolization only. We evaluate and compare long-term clinical outcomes after surgical ligation or embolization for the control of intractable epistaxis in terms of effectiveness (recurrence rate) and safety (complication rate).
Results
Forty-one procedures of supraselective embolization and 39 procedures of surgical ligation for intractable epistaxis are reported and analyzed. No significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of demographic factors, comorbidities, or average length of hospital stay. The 1-year success rate was similar (75%) in both groups. Complications (minor and/or major) occurred in 34% cases in the embolization group and in 18% in the surgical group (P = .09, ns). Bilateral embolization including facial artery was the only treatment method associated with a significant risk of complications (P = .015).
Conclusion
TESPAL seems to provide a similar control rate with a decrease in the number of complications compared to selective embolization in the context of intractable epistaxis. Further studies are required.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.