4.4 Article

Xylitol nasal irrigation in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 383-389

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2017.03.006

Keywords

Xylitol; Nasal irrigation; Chronic rhinosinusitis; VAS; SNOT-22; NO; iNOS; mRNA

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81371076]
  2. Shanghai Suburb Tertiary Hospital Clinical Capacity Building Project [SHDC12015905]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of xylitol nasal irrigation (XNI) treatment on chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and to investigate the effect of XNI on nasal nitric oxide (NO) and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) mRNA in maxillary sinus. Materials and methods: Patients with CRS were enrolled and symptoms were assessed by Visiral Analog Scale (VAS) and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT-22). Nasal NO and iNOS mRNA in the right maxillary sinus were also examined. Then, they were treated with XNI (XNI group) or saline nasal irrigation (SNI, SNI group) for 30 days, after which their symptoms were reassessed using VAS and SNOT-22, and nasal NO and iNOS mRNA in the right maxillary sinus were also reexamined. Results: Twenty-five out of 30 patients completed this study. The scores of VAS and SNOT-22 were all reduced significantly after XNI treatment, but not after SNI. The concentrations of nasal NO and iNOS mRNA in the right maxillary sinus were increased significantly in XNI group. However, significant changes were not found after SNI treatment. Furthermore, there were statistical differences in the assessments of VAS and SNOT-22 and the contents of nasal NO and iNOS mRNA in the right maxillary sinus between two groups. Conclusions: XNI results in greater improvement of symptoms of CRS and greater enhancement of nasal NO and iNOS mRNA in maxillary sinus as compared to SNI. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available