Squeeze bottle versus saline spray after endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis: a pilot multicentre trial

Olfactory Loss in Rhinosinusitis: Mechanisms of Loss and Recovery

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a highly prevalent disease and up to 83% of CRS patients suffer from olfactory dysfunction (OD). Because OD is specifically seen in those CRS patients that present with a type 2 eosinophilic inflammation, it is believed that type 2 inflammatory mediators at the level of the olfactory epithelium are involved in the development of this olfactory loss. However, due to the difficulties in obtaining tissue from the olfactory epithelium, little is known about the true mechanisms of inflammatory OD. Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, interest in olfaction has been growing rapidly and several studies have been focusing on disease mechanisms of OD in inflammatory conditions. In this paper, we summarize the most recent data exploring the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying OD in CRS. We also review what is known about the potential capacity of olfactory recovery of the currently available treatments in those patients.

Nasal Irrigation Delivery in Three Post-FESS Models From a Squeeze-bottle Using CFD

Purpose

Nasal saline irrigation is highly recommended in patients following functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) to aid the postoperative recovery. Post-FESS patients have significantly altered anatomy leading to markedly different flow dynamics from those found in pre-op or non-diseased airways, resulting in unknown flow dynamics.

Methods

This work investigated how the liquid stream disperses through altered nasal cavities following surgery using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). A realistic squeeze profile was determined from physical experiments with a 27-year-old male using a squeeze bottle with load sensors. The administration technique involved a head tilt of 45-degrees forward to represent a head position over a sink. After the irrigation event that lasted 4.5 s, the simulation continued for an additional 1.5 s, with the head orientation returning to an upright position.

Results

The results demonstrated that a large maxillary sinus ostium on the right side allows saline penetration into this sinus. The increased volume of saline entering the maxillary sinus limits the saline volume available to the rest of the sinonasal cavity and reduces the surface coverage of the other paranasal sinuses. The average wall shear stress was higher on the right side than on the other side for two patients. The results also revealed that head position alters the sinuses’ saline residual, especially the frontal sinuses.

Conclusion

While greater access to sinuses is achieved through FESS surgery, patients without a nasal septum limits posterior sinus penetration due to the liquid crossing over to the contralateral cavity and exiting the nasal cavity early.

Optimal Device and Regimen of Nasal Saline Treatment for Sinonasal Diseases: Systematic Review

Objective

This review aimed to systematically determine the optimal nasal saline regimen for different types of sinonasal diseases.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov. The last search was on December 6, 2021.

Review Methods

Study selection was done by 2 independent authors. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses were included. The effects of nasal saline treatment through various devices, saline tonicities, and buffer statuses were evaluated in patients with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, acute and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), CRS with cystic fibrosis, and postoperative care, including septoplasty/turbinoplasty and endoscopic sinus surgery.

Results

Sixty-nine studies were included: 10 meta-analyses and 59 randomized controlled trials. For allergic rhinitis, large-volume devices (≥60 mL) were effective for treating adults, while low-volume devices (5-59 mL) were effective for children. Isotonic saline was preferred over hypertonic saline due to fewer adverse events. For acute rhinosinusitis, saline irrigation was beneficial in children, but it was an option for adults. Large-volume devices were more effective, especially in the common cold subgroup. For CRS, large-volume devices were effective for adults, but saline drop was the only regimen that had available data in children. Buffered isotonic saline was more tolerable than nonbuffered or hypertonic saline. The data for CRS with cystic fibrosis and nonallergic rhinitis were limited. For postoperative care, buffered isotonic saline delivered by large-volume devices was effective.

Conclusion

Nasal saline treatment is recommended for treating most sinonasal diseases. Optimal delivery methods for each condition should be considered to achieve therapeutic effects of saline treatment.

Syringe with Nasal Applicator versus Syringe Alone for Nasal Irrigation in Acute Rhinosinusitis: A Matched-Pair Randomized Controlled Trial

Background/Aims

Nasal saline irrigation is a common procedure to relieve nasal symptoms in upper respiratory tract diseases. There is no consensus on the recommended nasal saline delivery devices. The objectives of this study were to evaluate efficacy, satisfaction, adherence, and adverse effects in patients with acute upper respiratory tract diseases using a syringe with a nasal applicator for nasal irrigation.

Methods

Patients with acute nasopharyngitis, acute rhinitis, or acute rhinosinusitis were randomly allocated to use either (1) a syringe with a nasal applicator or (2) a syringe alone to irrigate one nostril. After the patients had completed irrigation with the allocated device in one nostril, they were instructed to perform nasal irrigation using the other device in the other nostril. All patients were instructed to use a syringe with a nasal applicator at home. The efficacy, satisfaction scores, adherence, and adverse effects were recorded.

Results

Sixty-four patients were enrolled. The mean age of the patients was 33.95 years (18-59 years). The mean duration of symptoms was 4.80 days. None of the enrolled patients regularly performed nasal irrigation. Forty-two had acute nasopharyngitis, 10 had acute rhinitis, and 12 had acute rhinosinusitis. At baseline, the mean overall efficacy score for the syringe with a nasal applicator was 8.17 ± 1.43, and that for the syringe alone was 5.95 ± 2.02 (MD 2.23, p < 0.001, 95% CI 1.75-2.70). At 1 week, the syringe with the nasal applicator had significantly higher scores in 3 of 4 domains, including symptom relief, ease of use, and patients' willingness to recommend the device to others, compared to baseline (p < 0.05). None of the enrolled patients had epistaxis, retained/dislodged the applicator during irrigation, or experienced an allergic reaction to the applicator after 1 week of nasal irrigation.

Conclusion

Use of a syringe with an applicator for nasal irrigation yielded high scores in overall efficacy.

A multicenter survey on the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices in rhinosinusitis patients

BACKGROUND

Nasal irrigation is widely used as an adjunctive treatment for rhinosinusitis. However, there is little information available regarding the efficacy of the devices used in this procedure. The objective of this study was thus to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices based on the experiences of patients with rhinosinusitis.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter survey study between November 2017 and December 2019. The questionnaire was developed based on the available literature and expert opinion and submitted to the otolaryngology residents and staff of each center as well as those in their networks.

RESULTS

Four hundred eighteen patients were enrolled in this study: 76 with acute viral rhinosinusitis (18%), 53 with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (13%), 156 with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (37%), and 133 with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (32%). We found that high-volume devices were most effective in helping to clear secretion in patients with acute viral rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (P = .017, .009, .002, respectively) and in reducing post-nasal drip in those with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (P = .040). There were no statistically significant differences among devices in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasal irrigation with high-volume devices was an effective treatment for rhinosinusitis and was more effective at clearing nasal secretion and reducing post-nasal drip than that with other types of devices.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2C.

Efficacy of buffered hypertonic seawater in different phenotypes of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps after endoscopic sinus surgery: a randomized double-blind study

PURPOSE

Nasal douching is commonly used as a postoperative management strategy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Few studies to date have compared the effectiveness of nasal douching in CRSwNP phenotypes after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). We evaluated the efficacy of seawater types in eosinophilic CRSwNP (ECRSwNP) and noneosinophilic CRSwNP (nonECRSwNP) after ESS.

METHODS

Patients with bilateral CRSwNP who had undergone ESS were blindly randomized to receive buffered hypertonic seawater (BHS) (n = 48) or physiological seawater (PS) (n = 45). CRSwNP patients were stratified by phenotypes (ECRSwNP and nonECRSwNP) retrospectively according to whether tissue eosinophils exceeded 10%. Follow-up evaluations were conducted at 2, 8, 16, and 24 weeks after surgery. Evaluations included the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), visual analog scale (VAS), Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score (LKES), saccharine clearance time (SCT), and adverse events.

RESULTS

All of the patients experienced significant improvements in SNOT-22 scores, VAS scores, and LKES over time. BHS resulted in better improvement of LEKS and SCT relative to PS at 8 weeks postoperatively. Mucosal edema formation was significantly reduced with less crusting among HBS recipients at 8 weeks. After stratification, only patients in the nonECRSwNP + BHS subgroup showed a significant improvement in LEKS and SCT at 8 weeks postoperatively. Side effect profiles were not significantly different among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

BHS has a better inhibitory effect on mucosal edema and crusting during the early postoperative care period of CRSwNP. Among all of the patients, nonECRSwNP patients showed a significant improvement in LEKS and SCT at 8 weeks.

Postoperative Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use and Nasal Saline Rinses After Endonasal Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Practice Pattern Survey

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic skull base surgery continues to evolve in its indications, techniques, instrumentation, and postoperative care. As surgery of the skull base will often violate dura, intraoperative and postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak is not uncommon and represents a potential conduit for air and bacterial contamination. Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) requiring continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy undergoing skull base surgery represent a challenging group. However, there appears to be a paucity of consensus regarding the postoperative management of this patient population. The objective of this study is to examine practice patterns and expert opinion on the use of postoperative CPAP and nasal saline in patients with OSA.

METHODS

A 14-item survey was generated by consensus among expert authors and distributed online to members of the North American Skull Base society and other international skull base community members. Data were analyzed for median, mean, and standard deviation variables. Subgroup analysis was completed between surgeons from different geographical locations and operative experience. SPSS22 was utilized for all complex statistical analysis and figures.

RESULTS

Seventy-one responses were collected from skull base surgeons. In patients with OSA, respondents would resume patients' CPAP therapy after a mean of 10.1 days (median, 7; standard deviation [SD], 10.2), without a CSF leak. In the presence of a small CSF leak, the mean duration would increase to 14.3 days (median, 14; SD, 9.8) and to 20.7 days (median, 21; SD, 11.8) in the presence of a larger leak. A surgeon's choice to attribute the relationship between delaying the start of nasal saline and CPAP after the endoscopic skull base surgery with progressively more challenging skull base repair was found to be statistically significant ( P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Saline and CPAP therapies are initiated after the endoscopic skull base surgical repairs by surgeons at an increasing temporal delay in relation to the degree and complexity of the skull base defect repaired.

Does Heating up Saline for Nasal Irrigation Improve Mucociliary Function in Chronic Rhinosinusitis?

Background

Mucociliary function is affected by temperature. Exposure to cold air may impair ciliary beat frequency. While saline nasal irrigation improves in ciliary beat activity, there is no evidence supporting the use of heated saline irrigation in treating patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.

Objective

To compare the effects of heated saline to room-temperature saline nasal irrigation on mucociliary clearance in chronic rhinosinusitis patients.

Methods

Adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis were randomized into two groups receiving either heated saline or room-temperature saline nasal irrigation. Healthy subjects were included as control. Saccharin transit time was measured before and after nasal irrigation. Nasal patency was assessed by peak nasal inspiratory flow, anterior rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry, nasal obstruction score, and breathe-comfort score. Any adverse events were reported.

Results

Twenty-three patients with chronic rhinosinusitis and nine healthy subjects were enrolled. Saccharin transit time was decreased after nasal irrigation in both heated saline subgroup (baseline 12.3 ± 4.5 min vs. postirrigation 8.4 ± 4.9 min, p = 0.05) and room-temperature subgroup (baseline 12.8 ± 5.0 min vs. postirrigation 8.9 ± 4.2 min, p = 0.01). The saccharin transit time improvement was not different between heated saline (3.8 ± 6.2 min) and room-temperature saline (3.8 ± 4.0 min), p = 0.13. Postheated saline irrigation saccharin transit time of chronic rhinosinusitis patients (8.4 ± 4.9 min) was not different to healthy subjects (9.2 ± 3.7 min), p = 0.69. Nasal patency was not different between groups. There was no adverse event reported.

Conclusion

Nasal saline irrigation is beneficial to patients with chronic rhinosinusitis on mucociliary improvement. Warming saline is not necessary and adds no additional benefit to room-temperature saline irrigation.