4.2 Article

Topical therapy with high-volume budesonide nasal irrigations in difficult-to-treat chronic rhinosinusitis

Journal

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Volume 82, Issue 2, Pages 191-197

Publisher

ASSOC BRASILEIRA OTORRINOLARINGOLOGIA & CIRURGIA CERVICOFACIAL
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.03.014

Keywords

Sinusitis; Nasal polyps; Therapeutic irrigations; Corticosteroids; Endoscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is termed difficult-to-treat when patients do not reach acceptable level of control despite adequate surgery, intranasal corticosteroid treatment and up to 2 short courses of systemic antibiotics or corticosteroids in the preceding year. Recently, high-volume corticosteroid nasal irrigations have been recommended for CRS treatment. Objective: To assess high-volume budesonide nasal irrigations for difficult-to-treat CRS. Methods: Prospective uncontrolled intervention trial. Participants were assessed before- and 3 months after nasal irrigation with 1 mg of budesonide in 500 mL of saline solution daily for 2 days. Subjective (satisfactory clinical improvement) and objective (SNOT-22 questionnaire and Lund-Kennedy endoscopic scores) assessments were performed. Results: Sixteen patients were included, and 13 (81.3%) described satisfactory clinical improvement. SNOT-22 mean scores (50.2-29.6; p = 0.006) and Lund-Kennedy mean scores (8.8-5.1; p=0.01) improved significantly. Individually, 75% of patients improved SNOT-22 scores, and 75% improved Lund-Kennedy scores after high volume budesonide nasal irrigations. Conclusion: High-volume corticosteroid nasal irrigations are a good option in difficult-to-treat CRS control of disease, reaching 81.3% success control and significant improvement of SNOT-22 and Lund-Kennedy scores. (C) 2015 Associacao Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cervico-Facial. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available