MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective interventional study was conducted. Evaluation took place during the first visit (week 0) and second visit (week 12). Symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, cough and snoring were assessed, and an overall total symptoms score was obtained. A rigid nasoendoscopic examination using a four-grading system of adenoid size from 1 to 4 was performed. Patients were treated with MF intranasal spray for 12 weeks. Patients' aged 7-11-years old used 1 spray in each nostril once daily, while patients aged 12-17 used two sprays in each nostril once daily. Reassessment was carried out during the second visit (week 12).
RESULTS: A total of 74 patients was recruited. There were significant improvements from week 0 to week 12 in the symptoms' score for nose obstruction, rhinorrhoea, cough, snoring including the total nasal symptoms' score (p<0.001). AH significantly reduced in size from week 0 (2.89±.87) to week 12 (1.88±.83) (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: MF intranasal spray is effective in improving the symptoms attributed to AH as well as reducing the adenoid size. MF intranasal spray is advocated as a treatment option before adenoidectomy is considered.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of peri-operative tranexamic acid versus no therapy or placebo on operative parameters in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (with or without nasal polyps) who are undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS).
SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 10 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous, oral or topical tranexamic acid with no therapy or placebo in the treatment of patients (adults and children) with chronic rhinosinusitis, with or without nasal polyps, undergoing FESS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were surgical field bleeding score (e.g. Wormald or Boezaart grading system), intraoperative blood loss and significant adverse effects (seizures or thromboembolism within 12 weeks of surgery). Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery, incomplete surgery, surgical complications and postoperative bleeding (placing of packing or revision surgery) in the first two weeks after surgery. We performed subgroup analyses for methods of administration, different dosages, different forms of anaesthesia, use of thromboembolic prophylaxis and children versus adults. We evaluated each included study for risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies in the review, with a total of 942 participants. Sample sizes in the included studies ranged from 10 to 170. All but two studies included adult patients (≥ 18 years). Two studies included children. Most studies had more male patients (range 46.6% to 80%). All studies were placebo-controlled and four studies had three treatment arms. Three studies investigated topical tranexamic acid; the other studies reported the use of intravenous tranexamic acid. For our primary outcome, surgical field bleeding score measured with the Boezaart or Wormald grading score, we pooled data from 13 studies. The pooled result demonstrated that tranexamic acid probably reduces the surgical field bleeding score, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.51; 13 studies, 772 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A SMD below -0.70 represents a large effect (in either direction). Tranexamic acid may result in a slight reduction in blood loss during surgery compared to placebo with a mean difference (MD) of -70.32 mL (95% CI -92.28 to -48.35 mL; 12 studies, 802 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tranexamic acid probably has little to no effect on the development of significant adverse events (seizures or thromboembolism) within 24 hours of surgery, with no events in either group and a risk difference (RD) of 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 8 studies, 664 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there were no studies reporting significant adverse event data with a longer duration of follow-up. Tranexamic acid probably results in little difference in the duration of surgery with a MD of -13.04 minutes (95% CI -19.27 to -6.81; 10 studies, 666 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Tranexamic acid probably results in little to no difference in the incidence of incomplete surgery, with no events in either group and a RD of 0.00 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09; 2 studies, 58 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely results in little to no difference in surgical complications, again with no events in either group and a RD of 0.00 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09; 2 studies, 58 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although these numbers are too small to draw robust conclusions. Tranexamic acid may result in little to no difference in the likelihood of postoperative bleeding (placement of packing or revision surgery within three days of surgery) (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 6 studies, 404 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no studies with longer follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the beneficial value of topical or intravenous tranexamic acid during endoscopic sinus surgery with respect to surgical field bleeding score. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests a slight decrease in total blood loss during surgery and duration of surgery. Whilst there is moderate-certainty evidence that tranexamic acid does not lead to more immediate significant adverse events compared to placebo, there is no evidence regarding the risk of serious adverse events more than 24 hours after surgery. There is low-certainty evidence that tranexamic acid may not change postoperative bleeding. There is not enough evidence available to draw robust conclusions about incomplete surgery or surgical complications.
METHOD: Kind of therapeutics like low molecular weight drugs can be delivered to the CNS via this route. In this review, we have outlined the anatomy and physiological aspect of nasal mucosa, certain hurdles, various strategies including importance of muco-adhesive polymers to increase the drug delivery and possible clinical prospects that partly contribute in intranasal drug delivery.
RESULTS: Exhaustive literature survey related to intranasal drug delivery system revealed the new strategy that circumvents the BBB, based on non-invasive concept for treating various CNS disorders. Numerous advantages like prompt effects, self-medication through wide-ranging devices, and the frequent as well protracted dosing are associated with this novel route.
CONCLUSION: Recently few reports have proven that nasal to brain drug delivery system bypasses the BBB. This novel route is associated with targeting efficiency and less exposure of therapeutic substances to non-target site. Nevertheless, this route desires much more research into the safe transferring of therapeutics to the brain. Role of muco-adhesive polymer and surface modification with specific ligands are area of interest of researcher to explore more about this.