Publication:
Effects of large volume, isotonic nasal saline irrigation for acute rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled study

dc.contributor.authorWirach Chitsuthipakornen_US
dc.contributor.authorAngsuthorn Thanaphiphatsatjaen_US
dc.contributor.authorPeeravuit Doungbupphaen_US
dc.contributor.authorSaranath Lawpoolsrien_US
dc.contributor.authorKachorn Seresirikachornen_US
dc.contributor.authorKornkiat Snidvongsen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherChulalongkorn Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherRangsit Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherKing Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherRajavithi Hospitalen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-04T09:11:59Z
dc.date.available2022-08-04T09:11:59Z
dc.date.issued2021-10-01en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of nasal saline irrigation (large volume, positive pressure isotonic saline) in addition to standard treatment in patients with acute rhinosinusitis (ARS). Methods: This parallel, randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital. The adult patients with ARS (age ≥18 years) were randomly assigned to two groups. The irrigation group received 0.9% saline irrigation twice daily, using a 250-ml squeeze bottle, in addition to standard treatment. The no-irrigation group received standard treatment only. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 1 week, and 2 weeks. The quality of life, rhinologic subscore, symptom score, endoscopy score, and cure rate were compared. Results: Sixty-one patients (30: irrigation, 31: no-irrigation) were enrolled. There were 17 males and 44 females. The mean age was 41.06 years. Although both groups showed improvements, the improvement of each outcome was not different between the groups. Subgroup analysis by ARS subtype showed benefits of irrigation in the common cold subgroup; the improvements that were greater than control included: rhinologic subscore, intergroup mean difference −4.15 [95% confidence interval (CI), −7.49, −0.80] at 1 week and −5.23 [95% CI, −9.69, −0.78] at 2 weeks; combined symptom score −5.35 [95% CI, −10.55, −0.14] at 1 week and −8.02 [95%CI, −14.36, −1.70] at 2 weeks. Conclusion: The add-on isotonic nasal saline irrigation using a large volume, positive pressure device did not add benefits equally for all ARS patients. The benefits of irrigation on quality of life and nasal symptoms were only observed in the common cold patient subgroup.en_US
dc.identifier.citationInternational Forum of Allergy and Rhinology. Vol.11, No.10 (2021), 1424-1435en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/alr.22807en_US
dc.identifier.issn20426984en_US
dc.identifier.issn20426976en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85105196506en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/77839
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85105196506&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleEffects of large volume, isotonic nasal saline irrigation for acute rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85105196506&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections