A prospective controlled trial of pulsed nasal nebulizer in maximally dissected cadavers.

Rowan Valentine, Theo Athanasiadis, May Thwin, Deepti Singhal, Erik K Weitzel, Peter-John Wormald
{"title":"A prospective controlled trial of pulsed nasal nebulizer in maximally dissected cadavers.","authors":"Rowan Valentine,&nbsp;Theo Athanasiadis,&nbsp;May Thwin,&nbsp;Deepti Singhal,&nbsp;Erik K Weitzel,&nbsp;Peter-John Wormald","doi":"10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nasal douching is common practice in treatment of chronic sinusitis and after endoscopic sinus surgery. Current nasal delivery techniques show inconsistent sinus penetration. The aim of this study was to compare sinonasal penetration of nasal douching to an optimized nasal nebulizer in an operated cadaver model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Fourteen preserved cadavers were used receiving complete sphenoethmoidectomies with a Draf III, wide maxillary antrostomy, or medial maxillectomy. Seven control cadavers received nasal douching with one standardized squeeze bilaterally of a 200-mL nasal irrigation bottle and seven intervention cadavers were nebulized with 3 minutes of the PARI sinus device bilaterally. Douching solutions were stained with methylene blue. Independent observers documented sinonasal anatomy, staining intensity, and percentage area covered by dye using standardized grading protocols.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Combined data showed a significant increase in intensity of stain (2.06 versus 0.26, p < 0.001), percentage of stain (49.96% versus 4.19%, p < 0.001), and circumference stained (76.59% versus 12.7%, p < 0.001) with the plastic nasal irrigation squeeze bottle versus PARI device. Analysis of individual sinuses consistently showed significant increases in indices of nasal douching relative to nebulization. The PARI sinus nebulizer was noted to reach the ethmoids regularly (92% incidence), whereas the other sinuses were not reached as regularly with incidences noted at frontal (43%), maxillary (46%), and sphenoid (54%). This compares to 96% of all sinuses being stained by the squeeze bottle.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In all measured indices, the nasal douching method with the squeeze bottle was superior to the PARI sinus nebulizer in highly dissected sinonasal cadaver models.</p>","PeriodicalId":72175,"journal":{"name":"American journal of rhinology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3191","citationCount":"53","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of rhinology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 53

Abstract

Background: Nasal douching is common practice in treatment of chronic sinusitis and after endoscopic sinus surgery. Current nasal delivery techniques show inconsistent sinus penetration. The aim of this study was to compare sinonasal penetration of nasal douching to an optimized nasal nebulizer in an operated cadaver model.

Methods: Fourteen preserved cadavers were used receiving complete sphenoethmoidectomies with a Draf III, wide maxillary antrostomy, or medial maxillectomy. Seven control cadavers received nasal douching with one standardized squeeze bilaterally of a 200-mL nasal irrigation bottle and seven intervention cadavers were nebulized with 3 minutes of the PARI sinus device bilaterally. Douching solutions were stained with methylene blue. Independent observers documented sinonasal anatomy, staining intensity, and percentage area covered by dye using standardized grading protocols.

Results: Combined data showed a significant increase in intensity of stain (2.06 versus 0.26, p < 0.001), percentage of stain (49.96% versus 4.19%, p < 0.001), and circumference stained (76.59% versus 12.7%, p < 0.001) with the plastic nasal irrigation squeeze bottle versus PARI device. Analysis of individual sinuses consistently showed significant increases in indices of nasal douching relative to nebulization. The PARI sinus nebulizer was noted to reach the ethmoids regularly (92% incidence), whereas the other sinuses were not reached as regularly with incidences noted at frontal (43%), maxillary (46%), and sphenoid (54%). This compares to 96% of all sinuses being stained by the squeeze bottle.

Conclusion: In all measured indices, the nasal douching method with the squeeze bottle was superior to the PARI sinus nebulizer in highly dissected sinonasal cadaver models.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脉冲鼻喷雾器在最大解剖尸体上的前瞻性对照试验。
背景:鼻冲洗是治疗慢性鼻窦炎和鼻窦内窥镜手术后的常用方法。目前的鼻腔给药技术显示鼻窦渗透不一致。本研究的目的是比较鼻灌洗与优化后的鼻喷雾器在手术尸体模型中的鼻腔穿透性。方法:使用14具保存完好的尸体,接受完整的蝶筛切除术和draft III,宽上颌窦造口或内侧上颌切除术。7名对照尸体接受200 ml鼻冲洗瓶双侧一次标准挤压鼻冲洗,7名干预尸体双侧雾化3分钟PARI鼻窦装置。用亚甲蓝染色。独立观察员使用标准化分级方案记录鼻窦解剖、染色强度和染料覆盖面积百分比。结果:综合数据显示,与PARI装置相比,塑料鼻冲洗挤压瓶的染色强度(2.06比0.26,p < 0.001)、染色百分率(49.96%比4.19%,p < 0.001)和染色周长(76.59%比12.7%,p < 0.001)显著增加。对单个鼻窦的分析一致显示鼻灌洗相对于雾化的指标显著增加。PARI鼻窦喷雾器定期到达筛窦(92%的发生率),而其他鼻窦不定期到达,额窦(43%),上颌窦(46%)和蝶窦(54%)。相比之下,96%的鼻窦被挤压瓶染色。结论:在高度解剖的鼻窦尸体模型中,挤压瓶鼻灌洗法在各项测量指标上均优于PARI鼻窦喷雾器。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Perspectives on the etiology of chronic rhinosinusitis: an immune barrier hypothesis. Comparison of laryngeal mask with endotracheal tube for anesthesia in endoscopic sinus surgery. The effect of nasal surgery on snoring. Results of endoscopic maxillary mega-antrostomy in recalcitrant maxillary sinusitis. The efficacy of topical antibiofilm agents in a sheep model of rhinosinusitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1