Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • The utility of FloSeal haemostatic agent in the management of epistaxis

  • M K Khan, M Reda El Badawey, J Powell, M Idris
  • Journal:
    The Journal of Laryngology & Otology / Volume 129 / Issue 4 / April 2015
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    17 March 2015, pp. 353-357
    Print publication:
    April 2015
  • Background:

    FloSeal, a locally applied haemostatic agent, has been shown to be effective in a variety of clinical situations. This study investigated its potential benefits in the management of epistaxis.

    Methods:

    The outcomes of a series of patients with epistaxis presenting to one ENT unit, over a two-month period, were compared. Patients were either treated with FloSeal or traditional epistaxis management techniques. Success of FloSeal was classed as complete haemostasis after its application, without the need for further interventions and no readmission with epistaxis within 7 days.

    Results:

    Our study comprised 101 adults, with a mean age of 70 years (range, 22–98 years). The overall success rate for FloSeal was 14 per cent (5 out of 36 cases). It was successful in 66 per cent of anterior epistaxis cases (2 out of 3) and in only 9 per cent of posterior epistaxis cases (3 out of 33). There was a significantly higher failure rate of FloSeal compared with nasal packing in posterior epistaxis (p < 0.001).

    Conclusion:

    Our findings suggest that FloSeal has a limited role in the management of epistaxis.