International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2026
Effect of Laser Posterior Nasal Neurolysis for the Treatment of Chronic Rhinitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Liao Jyun-Yi, Wang En-Ying, Hsu Ying-Shuo, Tsai Ming-Shao, Wu Cheng-Jung, Chang Chia-Hao, Hwang Yi-Li, Teng Han-Lo, Hsieh Jun-Wei, Huang Chien-Yu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To determine the safety and efficacy of laser ablation of the posterior nasal nerve (PNN) for the treatment of chronic rhinitis.
METHODS: This study was a single-center, prospective, single-blinded, randomized sham-controlled trial. Patients with a 24-h reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) ≧ 5, rhinorrhea ≧ 2, and congestion ≧ 1, were randomized 2:1 to active PNN treatment with a CO2 laser device or a sham procedure. Outcome measures included the rTNSS, Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). The primary endpoint was the change in scores at 3 months.
RESULTS: Patients had a mean baseline rTNSS of 8.5 (95% CI, 7.9-9.1) and 8.2 (95% CI, 7.4-8.9) (p = 0.589) in the active treatment (n = 43) and sham control (n = 22) arms, respectively. At 3 months, the active treatment arm had a significantly greater decrease in rTNSS -4.7 (95% CI, -5.5 to -3.9) versus -2.6 (95% CI, -3.4 to -1.8) (p = 0.002). While the responder rate (RR, defined as ≧30% improvement rTNSS) was not significantly higher in the active treatment arm (81.4% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.119), post-hoc analysis of RR (≧ 50% improvement) showed a significantly higher rate of 65.1% versus 31.8% (p = 0.011). There were greater improvements in the PSQI and ESS scores for the active arm over the sham arm at follow-ups. (p = 0.041 and 0.005, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The CO2 laser posterior nasal neurolysis of the PNN area is associated with minimal adverse events and is superior to a sham procedure in reducing the symptom burden of chronic rhinitis.
METHODS: This study was a single-center, prospective, single-blinded, randomized sham-controlled trial. Patients with a 24-h reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) ≧ 5, rhinorrhea ≧ 2, and congestion ≧ 1, were randomized 2:1 to active PNN treatment with a CO2 laser device or a sham procedure. Outcome measures included the rTNSS, Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). The primary endpoint was the change in scores at 3 months.
RESULTS: Patients had a mean baseline rTNSS of 8.5 (95% CI, 7.9-9.1) and 8.2 (95% CI, 7.4-8.9) (p = 0.589) in the active treatment (n = 43) and sham control (n = 22) arms, respectively. At 3 months, the active treatment arm had a significantly greater decrease in rTNSS -4.7 (95% CI, -5.5 to -3.9) versus -2.6 (95% CI, -3.4 to -1.8) (p = 0.002). While the responder rate (RR, defined as ≧30% improvement rTNSS) was not significantly higher in the active treatment arm (81.4% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.119), post-hoc analysis of RR (≧ 50% improvement) showed a significantly higher rate of 65.1% versus 31.8% (p = 0.011). There were greater improvements in the PSQI and ESS scores for the active arm over the sham arm at follow-ups. (p = 0.041 and 0.005, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The CO2 laser posterior nasal neurolysis of the PNN area is associated with minimal adverse events and is superior to a sham procedure in reducing the symptom burden of chronic rhinitis.