Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:26:52.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Novel method for safe cauterisation of posterior epistaxis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2017

O Judd*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Owen Judd, Specialist Registrar in ENT, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester Leicestershire, UK. Fax: +44 1162586082 E-mail: owenjudd@doctors.org.uk

Abstract

Introduction:

In epistaxis, anterior bleeding points are easily cauterised under direct vision, but those which occur in the posterior nose present a greater challenge. Standard cautery techniques limit simultaneous use of other equipment in the narrow posterior nose.

Methods:

This article presents a novel device which combines suction, cautery stick and sheath in one single-handed implement for ease of use.

Conclusion:

This novel, hand-held device for simultaneous suction and safe cautery of posterior epistaxis is both safe and cost-effective. It enables successful treatment by a single operator and is relatively easy to use by the non-skilled, junior trainee.

Type
Short Communications
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Eng, CY, Hilmi, O, Ram, B. Technical tips. ‘Sheathed’ silver nitrate stick to cauterise posterior epistaxis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2004;86:475–6Google ScholarPubMed
2 Webb, CJ, Beer, H. Posterior nasal cautery with silver nitrate. J Laryngol Otol 2004;118:713–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Alderson, D. Simple device for chemical cauterization of posterior bleeding points in the nose. J Laryngol Otol 2000;114:616–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 McGarry, GW. Nasal endoscope in posterior epistaxis: a preliminary evaluation. J Laryngol Otol 1991;105:428–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed