Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Does Length Matter? A Comparison of Rapid Rhino™ Nasal Packings for the Treatment of Epistaxis


Kunz, Seraina M; Holzmann, David; Waser, Yves; Meerwein, Christian; Deggeller, Marcel; Soyka, Michael B (2019). Does Length Matter? A Comparison of Rapid Rhino™ Nasal Packings for the Treatment of Epistaxis. American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy, 33(6):723-729.

Abstract

Background
Epistaxis is the most common otorhinolaryngologic emergency around the world. A broad variety of treatment options is available; ranging from conservative measures such as cauterization and nasal packings to surgery. For posterior epistaxis, nasal packings are usually the preferred initial treatment method. There are 2 different models of the widely used Rapid Rhino™ packing available at our department; the 7.5 cm, single-lumen, and the 9 cm, double-lumen variant with 2 separately inflatable balloons. Identifying whether one packing is superior to the other will help with the choice of the best possible treatment.
Objective
The goal of this study was to determine whether the new, double-lumen model had advantages compared to its shorter counterpart.
Methods
All patients treated with Rapid Rhino™ packings for spontaneous epistaxis between December 2005 and October 2017 were analyzed for various parameters such as recurrence rates, hospitalization rate, and duration of in-patient stay. The groups were divided by model and whether patients were treated before or after the introduction of the double-lumen version (December 2010).
Results
A total of 865 cases of patients treated with Rapid Rhino™ packs were analyzed. Before December 2010, 210 of 372 cases (56%) were hospitalized, whereas afterwards it was only 48% (235/493; P = .01). The duration of the in-patient stay decreased from 3.7 to 3.1 days (P < .01). There was no difference in recurrence rates.
Conclusion
The introduction of the double-lumen, 9 cm Rapid Rhino™ packing has led to a decrease of in-patient time and to less hospitalizations. Therefore, it should be preferred to the shorter, single-lumen model in the treatment of posterior epistaxis.

Abstract

Background
Epistaxis is the most common otorhinolaryngologic emergency around the world. A broad variety of treatment options is available; ranging from conservative measures such as cauterization and nasal packings to surgery. For posterior epistaxis, nasal packings are usually the preferred initial treatment method. There are 2 different models of the widely used Rapid Rhino™ packing available at our department; the 7.5 cm, single-lumen, and the 9 cm, double-lumen variant with 2 separately inflatable balloons. Identifying whether one packing is superior to the other will help with the choice of the best possible treatment.
Objective
The goal of this study was to determine whether the new, double-lumen model had advantages compared to its shorter counterpart.
Methods
All patients treated with Rapid Rhino™ packings for spontaneous epistaxis between December 2005 and October 2017 were analyzed for various parameters such as recurrence rates, hospitalization rate, and duration of in-patient stay. The groups were divided by model and whether patients were treated before or after the introduction of the double-lumen version (December 2010).
Results
A total of 865 cases of patients treated with Rapid Rhino™ packs were analyzed. Before December 2010, 210 of 372 cases (56%) were hospitalized, whereas afterwards it was only 48% (235/493; P = .01). The duration of the in-patient stay decreased from 3.7 to 3.1 days (P < .01). There was no difference in recurrence rates.
Conclusion
The introduction of the double-lumen, 9 cm Rapid Rhino™ packing has led to a decrease of in-patient time and to less hospitalizations. Therefore, it should be preferred to the shorter, single-lumen model in the treatment of posterior epistaxis.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
1 citation in Web of Science®
1 citation in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

2 downloads since deposited on 05 Sep 2019
2 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Otorhinolaryngology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Uncontrolled Keywords:Immunology and Allergy, Otorhinolaryngology, General Medicine
Language:English
Date:1 November 2019
Deposited On:05 Sep 2019 15:12
Last Modified:09 Nov 2019 02:03
Publisher:OceanSide Publications
ISSN:1050-6586
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1945892419864799

Download

Closed Access: Download allowed only for UZH members