American journal of rhinology · 2008
A prospective controlled trial of pulsed nasal nebulizer in maximally dissected cadavers.
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Valentine Rowan, Athanasiadis Theo, Thwin May, Singhal Deepti, Weitzel Erik K, Wormald Peter-John
Аннотация
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.
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.