↓ Skip to main content

Removing Nasal Packing in Epistaxis: What to Do in the Case of an Undeflatable Foley Catheter Balloon

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Removing Nasal Packing in Epistaxis: What to Do in the Case of an Undeflatable Foley Catheter Balloon
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, October 2013
DOI 10.1055/s-0033-1351672
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Pena Gaspar-Sobrinho, Mariana D. Moreira, Cibele G. Bicalho, Hélio A. Lessa

Abstract

Introduction Undeflatable Foley catheter balloons adapted for use as nasal packing in epistaxis represent a possible complication. Case Reports We report on three cases in which Foley catheter balloons adapted for use as posterior nasal packing in epistaxis failed to deflate. In one patient, deflation was achieved by simply using the fingertips to massage the segment of the catheter collapsed by the fixation device. In the second case, the Foley balloon was removed by the oral route after sectioning the catheter. In the third patient, the Foley catheter was successfully deflated after sectioning. Discussion The probable causes of the undeflatable balloons in these cases were a blockage or lumen collapse of the balloon or a malfunction in the valve system. Although no definitive method has been established for dealing with this complication, the options proposed are the following: manipulation to restore the permeability of the segment of the catheter collapsed by the fixation device, if this is the case; sectioning the catheter or inserting a stiletto catheter; bursting the balloon; or removing it by the oral route. The latter option is apparently the most appropriate for the otolaryngologist in cases unrelated to simple collapse caused by the fixation device.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Professor 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 14%
Unknown 3 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#17,753,591
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#197
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,509
of 212,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#12
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.