Transnasal Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Ligation Research Articles

Comparative Study between Transnasal Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Ligation and Cauterization in Posterior Epistaxis

Comparative Study between Transnasal Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Ligation and Cauterization in Posterior Epistaxis

Efficacy of Trans-nasal Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Ligation in the Management of Recurrent Posterior Epistaxis

Background: Recurrent posterior epistaxis is a challenging problem for most otolaryngologists. Of the several proposed treatment modalities, endoscopic ligation of SPA (Sphenopalatine artery) provides a simple and effective solution with relatively minor complications. Objectives: Aim of this study was to find out the success rate and complications of endoscopic ligation of SPA in the management of recurrent posterior epistaxis. Materials and Methods: This was an observational study conducted from Jan 2019 to Jan 2021. Total 60 patients were included in this study. Inclusion criteria were - recurrent epistaxis (at least 4 episodes in last 2 months) with bleeding point not seen in anterior rhinoscopy, Failure of previous conservative management with medications and nasal packing, age between 18–60 years of both sexes. All the patients underwent trans-nasal endoscopic Sphenopalatine artery ligation, and patients were followed up for 12 weeks to identify repeated bleeding and to evaluate complications. Results: In this study male to female ratio was 1.5:1. Mean age of study group was 44.66 (±8.62) years. No recurrent bleeding occurred in 51 (85%) and in 9 (15%) nasal bleeding occurred in the 2 months postoperative period. Anesthesia of incisor teeth occurred in 18 patients (30%), 22 patients (37%) complained about increased nasal crusting. Conclusion: Endoscopic ligation of Sphenopalatine artery shows good outcome in prevention of further episodes of epistaxis in most patients. Although some minor complications can occur, these are manageable. KYAMC Journal. 2021;12(3): 133-137

Survey Anatomical Features and Related Factors of the Sphenopalatine Foramen on Computed Tomography.

The aim of the research is to define anatomical features of the sphenopalatine foramen (SPF) and be related to the SPF on computed tomography (CT) such as shape, location, size of the SPF, the appearance of the ethmoidal crest, and the distance from SPF to some landmarks in the nasal cavity. As a result, surgeons could quickly determine the SPF location in transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL). A cross-sectional study was conducted. This study was carried out at Cho Ray hospital from August 2019 to June 2020. Image data from 55 patients who had been indicated sinuses CT. Results show that the SPF had a wide range of shapes: oval (20.9%), triangle (19.1%), circle (18.2%), racket shape (7.3%), hourglass shape (6.4%), and other shapes. In the anteroposterior dimension, the mean SPF was 5.72 ± 1.22mm. In the craniocaudal dimension, the mean SPF measured 5.62 ± 1.99mm. The SPF was mainly located in the superior meatus and in the transition between the middle and superior meatus. The most reliable anatomical landmark to find the SPF was the ethmoidal crest with an appearance rate of about 95.5%. The mean distances from SPF to anterior nasal spine, nasal floor, nasal septum, maxillary line, anterior head of the middle turbinate, choanal arch, and base lamella were 57.04 ± 3.11, 24.71 ± 2.90, 11.26 ± 2.09, 34.93 ± 2.07, 32.69 ± 3.30, 8.82 ± 1.65, and 8.07 ± 1.28mm, respectively. CT scan images in this study can provide information about anatomical features of the SPF, which contribute to the quick and efficient identification of the SPF before and during TESPAL.

Trans-nasal Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Ligation in Epistaxis: Coblation Versus Electrocauterization.

Epistaxis is one of the most common emergencies encountered by otorhinolaryngologist. Although anterior epistaxis is easy to manage but posterior epistaxis is usually refractory. Transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) is now a well established surgical technique for the management of refractory epistaxis. Electrocauterization and clipping are the most common methods used for ligation. Coblation is an upcoming tool with promising results in endoscopic skull base surgeries and tonsillectomies but has not been explored much in TESPAL. It was a randomised observational study.50 patients of refractory epistaxis were included in the study. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Group A underwent TESPAL using electrocauterization while Group B underwent TESPAL using coblation. The data was collected and analysed for various parameters like experience of the surgeon, time taken for surgery, episodes of rebleeding and postoperative crusting. Out of 50 cases in our study 27 were males and 23 were females. Most common age group was 60-70years (68%). Most common cause was hypertension (86%). Surgeons were happy 21/25 times in coblation group compared to 9/25 times in electrocauterization group. There were 4/25 rebleeding episodes in electrocauterization group compared to none in coblation group. Post-operative crusting was also less in coblation group compared to electrocauterization. Though electrocauterization is a well established method for TESPAL our experience with coblation in TESPAL has been extremely satisfying. We suggest our colleagues to conduct more research studies on use of coblation in TESPAL to reach a consensus.

Role of Endoscopic Internal Maxillary Artery Ligation in Intractable Idiopathic Epistaxis.

The protocols for managing intractable idiopathic epistaxis have evolved with advances in endoscopic techniques. Transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) has been the treatment of choice for idiopathic intractable epistaxis. If TESPAL fails, transantral ligation of internal maxillary artery (IMA) used to be the dictum along with radiological interventions. Here we discuss about the role of endoscopic IMA ligation in cases of failed TESPALs. Retrospective study at a tertiary hospital was performed. 28 cases of intractable idiopathic epistaxis underwent TESPAL in our institution of which 2 cases had rebleed. We also had two referred cases of failed TESPALS. Of this 4 patients, three patients underwent endoscopic IMA ligation and one patient underwent selective embolisation. All the patients who underwent endoscopic IMA ligation for failed TESPAL had no further episodes of epistaxis. One patient who underwent selective embolization also had no further episodes of bleed but had transient facial pain and trismus. When TESPAL fails, endoscopic IMA ligation can be considered as an alternative procedure before resorting to embolization.

Transnasal Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Ligation Compared With Embolization for Intractable Epistaxis: A Long-term Analysis

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.

Landmarks for rapid localization of the sphenopalatine foramen: A radiographic morphometric analysis.

Background:Transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation is becoming the procedure of choice for surgical management of intractable posterior epistaxis. Landmarks for localization of the sphenopalatine foramen can assist in rapid surgical exposure of the sphenopalatine artery.Objective:This study examined distances from easily identified endoscopic surgical landmarks to the sphenopalatine foramen.Methods:By using computed tomography of the sinus to study radiologic anatomy in 50 adults, distances were measured between five simple endoscopic landmarks and the sphenopalatine foramen. The two-tailed t-test was used for statistical analysis.Results:Right- and left-sided measurements were similar. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) anteroposterior distances to the sphenopalatine foramen were the following: from the maxillary line (36.7 ± 5.5 mm), anterior head of the middle turbinate (33.8 ± 6.7 mm), basal lamella (11.8 ± 1.9 mm), and choanal arch (−9.2 ± 1.4 mm). The mean (SD) distance in the vertical dimension from the nasal floor was 26.6 ± 2.6 mm. Female patients had statistically shorter distances to the sphenopalatine foramen from the maxillary line, anterior head of the middle turbinate, choanal arch, and nasal floor.Conclusion:Reliable endoscopic landmarks exist in relation to consistent anatomic structures and can be used to help quickly estimate the location of the sphenopalatine foramen at the onset of the procedure.

Optimizing the outcome of transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation in managing refractory posterior epistaxis: A case–control analysis

ObjectiveTo optimize the outcome of transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) by determining the key surgical steps and applying them accordingly. MethodsThis is a case–control study carried out in a tertiary care teaching institution on subjects who underwent TESPAL during the period of October 2010 to September 2015. Their surgical and clinical records were reviewed, and success (no re-bleed) and failure (return with re-bleed) were considered the main outcome measures of TESPAL. Accordingly, depending on whether the subjects returned with re-bleed or not, they were classified as “failure” and “success” groups. After appropriate matching in terms of age, gender and a given set of exclusion criteria that could influence per-operative decision-making or contribute to post-operative epistaxis, the groups were considered as cases (subjects undergoing TESPAL and returned with re-bleed; part of the “failure” group following matching) and controls (subjects undergoing TESPAL and did not return with re-bleed; part of the “success” group following matching). Per-operative/surgical factors executed or followed in varied combinations in each group that influenced the outcome of TESPAL were then identified from the surgical notes and were subsequently analyzed statistically. ResultsIn 89% of cases, the sphenopalatine artery (SPA) pedicle was either clipped or cauterized, whereas in 90% of the controls, it was both clipped and cauterized. The posterior nasal artery (PNA), when found, was cauterized in 25% of the cases, compared to 85% in the controls. Also, the septal artery region was cauterized in only 33% of cases. Both cauterization/clipping of the SPA along with cauterization of PNA was done in 69% of the controls, whereas in 59% the septal artery region was also cauterized. However, there were no cases when all these steps were combined. The results were statistically significant. ConclusionWhen only the per-operative/surgical factors were considered, the outcome of TESPAL was most favorable when the procedure could be done combining both clipping and cauterization of the SPA, along with cauterization of the PNA and the septal artery region.

Endoscopic Sphenopalatine Artery Ligation in Posterior Epistaxis: Retrospective Analysis of 30 Patients.

Although posterior epistaxis is rarely seen, it is an important medical problem that both decreases the quality of life of the patient and causes difficulties in the management for otorhinolaryngologists. In this study, we aimed to present the results of 30 patients who underwent transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) for posterior epistaxis in our department. The records of 30 patients who underwent TESPAL from January 2014 to April 2016 were analyzed retrospectively, and the relationship between perioperative factors and need for revision surgery was assessed. The success rate of TESPAL in posterior epistaxis was 90%. There was no relationship between surgical failure and antiaggregant use (p=0.224), anticoagulant use (p=0.534), hypertension (p=0.564), previous nasal surgery (p=0.279), and bilateral TESPAL application (p=0.279). TESPAL was seen to be effective in cases with Osler-Weber-Rendu disease, pregnancy, and uncontrollable epistaxis after rhinoplasty surgery. Mortality was seen in one of our patients not related to endoscopic ligation in the follow-up period. TESPAL is an effective method in the treatment of posterior epistaxis. Hypertension, antiaggregant or anticoagulant use, bilateral sphenopalatine artery ligation, and previous nasal surgery do not seem to be factors leading to surgical failure.

Developing a laddered algorithm for the management of intractable epistaxis: a risk analysis.

For patients with epistaxis in whom initial interventions, such as anterior packing and cauterization, had failed, options including prolonged posterior packing, transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL), and embolization are available. However, it is unclear which interventions should be attempted and in which order. While cost-effectiveness analyses have suggested that TESPAL is the most responsible use of health care resources, physicians must also consider patient risk to maintain a patient-centered decision-making process. To quantify the risk associated with the management of intractable epistaxis. A risk analysis was performed using literature-reported probabilities of treatment failure and adverse event likelihoods in an emergency department and otolaryngology hospital admissions setting. The literature search included articles from 1980 to May 2014. The analysis was modeled for a 50-year-old man with no other medical comorbidities. Severities of complications were modeled based on Environmental Protection Agency recommendations, and health state utilities were monetized based on a willingness to pay $22 500 per quality-adjusted life-year. Six management strategies were developed using posterior packing, TESPAL, and embolization in various sequences (P, T, and E, respectively). Total risk associated with each algorithm quantified in US dollars. Algorithms involving posterior packing and TESPAL as first-line interventions were found to be similarly low risk. The lowest-risk approaches were P-T-E ($2437.99 [range, $1482.83-$6976.40]), T-P-E ($2840.65 [range, $1136.89-$8604.97]), and T-E-P ($2867.82 [range, $1141.05-$9833.96]). Embolization as a first-line treatment raised the total risk significantly owing to the risk of cerebrovascular events (E-T-P, $11 945.42 [range, $3911.43-$31 847.00]; and E-P-T, $11 945.71 [range, $3919.91-$31 767.66]). Laddered approaches using TESPAL and posterior packing appear to provide the lowest risk. Combining risk and cost-effectiveness perspectives, we recommend a laddered approach to intractable epistaxis with TESPAL first, followed by either embolization or posterior packing.

Management of Intractable Spontaneous Epistaxis

Epistaxis is a common otolaryngology emergency and is often controlled with first-line interventions such as cautery, hemostatic agents, or anterior nasal packing. A subset of patients will continue to bleed and require more aggressive therapy. Intractable spontaneous epistaxis was traditionally managed with posterior nasal packing and prolonged hospital admission. In an effort to reduce patient morbidity and shorten hospital stay, surgical and endovascular techniques have gained popularity. A literature review was conducted. Transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation and arterial embolization provide excellent control rates but the decision to choose one over the other can be challenging. The role of transnasal endoscopic anterior ethmoid artery ligation is unclear but may be considered in certain cases when bleeding localizes to the ethmoid region. This article will focus on the management of intractable spontaneous epistaxis and discuss the role of endoscopic arterial ligation and embolization as it pertains to this challenging clinical scenario.

Combined Endoscopic Transmaxillary-Transnasal Approach to the Pterygoid Region, Lateral Sphenoid Sinus, and Retrobulbar Orbit

The sublabial transmaxillary approach to the pterygoid region was a popular one during the Caldwell-Luc, pre-endoscopic era. It was the procedure of choice for management of lesions of the pterygopalatine space, for internal maxillary artery ligation, and for vidian neurectomy. With the introduction of endoscopic instrumentation and techniques, the Caldwell-Luc procedure is rarely performed today. Also, because vidian neurectomy is performed less frequently, and because internal maxillary artery ligation for severe epistaxis has been replaced with transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation, the sublabial transmaxillary route is rarely used. We have found that combining the use of endoscopes via the sublabial approach and the transnasal endoscopic approach is very helpful for management of extreme lateral lesions of the sphenoid sinus, as well as the pterygoid region and the posterior orbit. The records of patients who underwent a combined endoscopic transmaxillary-transnasal approach between 1994 and 2002 were reviewed. Indications for the procedure included extreme lateral sphenoid and pterygoid encephalocele (3 patients), pterygoid mucocele (2 patients), orbital apex lesion (2 patients), and pterygopalatine tumor (2 patients). Nine patients underwent the above-mentioned procedure. Wide and comfortable exposure of the involved region was achieved in all cases. Compared with the transnasal approach, the working distance, working comfort, and maneuverability of instruments were significantly enhanced. There were no major complications related to the approach. Because the maxillary wall opening is very small, infraorbital hypoesthesia is very limited and of short duration. Combining the transmaxillary and transnasal approaches for endoscopic management of pterygoid, lateral sphenoid, and retrobulbar orbit lesions provides excellent exposure and avoids the limited working angle and surgical struggle that may be associated with the use of the transnasal approach alone.

Economic Analysis of the Treatment of Posterior Epistaxis

The aim of this study was to compare the economic impact of controlling posterior epistaxis by transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) and endovascular embolization. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing treatment of posterior epistaxis by either TESPAL or embolization. International Classification of Diseases 9 code 784.7 (epistaxis) was the initial screen followed by common procedural terminology codes for TESPAL and angiography with embolization. The total charges and direct costs for TESPAL and endovascular embolization were determined. An unpaired Student's t-test was used to evaluate statistical significance. Analysis revealed 25 patients that met inclusion criteria. The mean total charge was $14,088 for embolization and $7561 for TESPAL. The differences were statistically significant (p < 0.00006). Costs, defined as reimbursement by third-party payers and direct payments, varied widely and their difference did not reach statistical significance in this sample. Our data established no economic advantage for angiography and, in fact, show a trend toward this treatment being more expensive than TESPAL. TESPAL is a procedure that can be performed quickly and on an outpatient basis without the need for angiography equipment or expertise. Additionally, the procedure provides the advantage of a comprehensive endoscopic nasal evaluation for ruling out tumors or other intranasal lesions. With equal efficacy, at least equal costs and equal risk, and additional diagnostic advantages, TESPAL is a more rational treatment for posterior epistaxis.

Economic analysis of the treatment of posterior epistaxis

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to compare the economic impact of controlling posterior epistaxis by transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation (TESPAL) and endovascular embolization. METHODS We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing treatment of posterior epistaxis by either TESPAL or embolization. International Classification of Diseases 9 code 784.7 (epistaxis) was the initial screen followed by common procedural terminology codes for TESPAL and angiography with embolization. The total charges and direct costs for TESPAL and endovascular embolization were determined. An unpaired Student's t-test was used to evaluate statistical significance. RESULTS Analysis revealed 25 patients that met inclusion criteria. The mean total charge was $14,088 for embolization and $7561 for TESPAL. The differences were statistically significant (p < 0.00006). Costs, defined as reimbursement by third-party payers and direct payments, varied widely and their difference did not reach statistical significance in this sample. CONCLUSION Our data established no economic advantage for angiography and, in fact, show a trend toward this treatment being more expensive than TESPAL. TESPAL is a procedure that can be performed quickly and on an outpatient basis without the need for angiography equipment or expertise. Additionally, the procedure provides the advantage of a comprehensive endoscopic nasal evaluation for ruling out tumors or other intranasal lesions. With equal efficacy, at least equal costs and equal risk, and additional diagnostic advantages, TESPAL is a more rational treatment for posterior epistaxis.

Contemporary surgical treatment of epistaxis. What is the evidence for sphenopalatine artery ligation?

The optimal surgical management for failed conservative measures in epistaxis remains unclear. Given the growing enthusiasm for endoscopic transnasal sphenopalatine artery ligation, it is prudent and timely to evaluate the evidence base for this technique. This study aims to analyse the current evidence for transnasal endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation by reviewing the literature and also by comparing the results with other approaches to the management of epistaxis. A detailed literature search identified 11 publications relating to endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation. The total number of patients in the pooled series was 127, of which 98% had control of epistaxis following surgery. These results compared favourably to the results of most other techniques used in the modern treatment of epistaxis. Nonetheless, the total number of patients in the 11 case series is small. It is therefore recommended that all units using this technique audit their results to see if the high success rates achieved in the literature are reproducible. If this is the case, then endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation may indeed be the surgical answer to intractable posterior epistaxis.