Menéndez ZSM, González OSI, Rodríguez VM

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 137-142
PDF size: 273.99 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the most effective choice between the pressurized sea water versus NaCl 0.9% in preventing crusting of nasalization in postoperative patients in five aspects: 1) decreased crusting, 2) reepithelialization of the cavity, 3) presence or absence of purulent discharge, 4) degree of postoperative pain, and 5) degree of postoperative nasal obstruction.
Study Design: This is a prospective, comparative, experimental, blind, non-randomized, experimental study.
Patients and method: Of the patients attended at outpatient setting because of nasosinusal symptoms, those who were candidates for realization of polypectomy were selected, the procedure performed was nasalization for all those who had consent for the procedure, they were treated after the surgery in the outpatient setting with saline solution or pressurized sea water, antibiotic and anti-inflammatory for both groups. Each patient was seen once a week by the same physician after the completion of surgery during the first four weeks and was evaluated with rigid endoscopy to assess the presence of re-epithelialization of the nasal cavity, the presence or absence of purulent discharge, degree of pain and of nasal obstruction.
Conclusions: The use of pressurized sea water was superior to the use of saline solution in all variables measured during this study.

REFERENCES

1. Aberg N, Sundell J, Eriksson B, Hesselmar B, et al. Prevalence of allergic disease in schoolchildren in relation to family history, upper respiratory tract infections, and residential characteristics. Allergy 1996;51:232-237.

2. Johannssen V, Maune S, Erichsen H, Hedderich H, et al. Effect of postoperative endonasal mucous membrane care on nasal bacterial flora: prospective study of 2 irrigation methods with NaCl solution after paranasal sinus surgery. Laryngorhinootologie 1996;75:580-583.

3. Azoulay B. Use of Stérimar® in ent hygiene. Gaz Medic 1987;94:31.

4. Fougerol J. Stérimar® respiratory relief and allergic rhinitis in adults. Gaz Medic 1992;99:41-42.

5. Górski P. et al. Alergia Astma Immunologia 1998;3(4):223-228.

6. Knox RB, Suphioglu C, Taylor P, Desai R, et al. Major grass pollen allergen Lol p 1 binds to diesel exhaustparticles: implications for asthma and air pollution. Clin Exp Allergy 1997;27(3):246-251.

7. Bruker J. Stérimar® as a factor in nasal higiene. Gaz Medic 1989;96:42.

8. Contencin P. Stérimar® in rhinopharyngeal disinfection in children. La revue de Pédiatrie 1989;25:421-423.

9. Emeryk A. Praca habilitacyjna. AM Lublin 1999.

10. Lundback B. Epidemiology of rhinitis and asthma. Clin Exp Allergy 1998;28(Suppl 2):3-10.

11. Marsac A. Use of Stérimar® in common rhinosinusal pathology. Les Cahiers dORL 1989;24(10):799-800.

12. Rapiejko P, Weryszko-Chmielewska E. Alergia Astma Immunologia 1998; 3(4):187-192.

13. Scadding GK, Lund VJ, Darby YC. The effect of long-term antibiotic therapy upon ciliary beat frequency in chronic rhinosinusitis. J Laryngol Otol 1995;109:24-26.

14. Taccariello M, Parikh A, Darby Y, Scadding G, et al. Nasal douching as a valuable adjunct in the management of chronic rhinosinusitis. Rhinology 1999;37:29-32.

15. Talbot AR, Herr TM, Parsons DS. Mucociliary clearance and buffered hypertonic saline solution. Laryngoscope 1997;107:500-503.

16. Krzeski A, Baltaziuk H, Bialek S, Bialek K, et al. The efficiency and tolerance of aqueous budesonide suspension in the therapy of seasonal allergic rhinitis. Alergia Astma Immunologia 2001;6(1):25-31.