Methods: A quasi-experimental trial study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of nasal rinsing between two groups. The intervention group was instructed to perform nasal rinsing during ablution, while the control group was not asked to do nasal rinsing. Both groups were provided progress diaries to record the symptoms of respiratory tract infection, including cough, rhinorrhoea, nasal blockage, fever, and sore throat, as well as thick phlegm, shortness of breath, epistaxis, and changes in sense of smell. The groups were also instructed to record any visits to clinics for their symptoms throughout their stay in Makkah for the Hajj ritual.
Results: The study showed that nasal rinsing significantly reduced the symptoms of cough, rhinorrhoea, and nasal blockage. The intervention group had an increased number of visits to healthcare facilities for treatment, when compared to those of the control group. There were no significant differences in the groups regarding the symptoms of fever and sore throat.
Conclusion: Nasal rinsing can be included as part of intervention methods that include vaccination and the use of a face mask. Nasal rinsing can be easily practiced by the pilgrims, since it is a Sunnah act in ablution, which is an integral element of Muslims' daily life.
METHODS: A prospective randomized comparative trial was conducted among patients with bilateral nasal blockage secondary to inferior turbinates hypertrophy. Patients were randomly assigned to MAT or CAT. An extraturbinal medial flap turbinoplasty was performed for both techniques. Symptom assessment was based on the visual analogue score for nasal obstruction, sneezing, rhinorrhea, headache and hyposmia. Turbinate size, edema and secretions were assessed by nasoendoscopic examination. The assessments were done preoperatively, at 1st postoperative week, 2nd and 3rd postoperative months. Postoperative morbidity like pain, bleeding, crusting and synechiae were documented. The clinical outcomes of both techniques were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA.
RESULTS: A total of 33 participants were recruited, 17 patients randomized for MAT and 16 patients for CAT. Nasal obstruction, discharge, sneezing, headache and hyposmia significantly reduced from 1st week until 3 months for both procedures. Similar significant reductions were seen for turbinate size, edema and secretions. However, there was no significant difference in symptoms and turbinate size reduction were seen between both groups at the first postoperative week, 2nd and 3rd postoperative months. There was significant longer operating time for CAT when compared to MAT (p = 0.001). The postoperative complications of bleeding, crusting and synechiae did not occur in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Both MAT and CAT were equally effective in improving nasal symptoms and achieving turbinate size reduction in patients with inferior turbinate hypertrophy. Both MAT and CAT offer maximal relieve in patients experiencing inferior turbinates hypertrophy by removing the hypertrophied soft tissue together with the turbinate bone without any complications.
METHODS: The participants were divided into control and allergic rhinitis groups based on the clinical symptoms and skin prick tests. The AR group was treated with intranasal corticosteroid after the diagnosis. The nasal fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) levels were compared between control and AR groups. In the AR group, the visual analogue scale (VAS), Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation (NOSE) questionnaire, and nasal fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were assessed pre- and post-treatment.
RESULTS: One hundred ten adults were enrolled. The nasal FeNO level was significantly higher in AR compared to control (p nasal FeNO, p nasal FeNO in the diagnosis of AR was 390.0 ppb (sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 80%) based on the receiver operator characteristic curve.
CONCLUSION: Nasal FeNO level is significantly higher in AR compared to control group with significant difference pre- and post-treatment. The findings suggest nasal FeNO can serve as an adjunct diagnostic tool together with the monitoring of treatment response in AR.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of 1.8% SPHNSI and 0.9% commercial isotonic nasal saline irrigation (0.9% CINSI) in patients with AR.
METHODS: A randomised, single-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was performed as a pilot study. Seventy-eight patients with AR were included. Each patient was randomised to nasal irrigation with 80 mL of either 1.8% SPHNSI or 0.9% CINSI twice-daily for 4 weeks. Randomised codes were generated using a computer and a block of 4 procedure. The primary outcome was improvement of quality of life scores in Thai patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (Rcq-36). Secondary outcomes were clinical symptoms using total nasal symptom scores (TNSS) and adverse events. All outcomes were assessed by blinded assessors at baseline, week 2, and week 4.
RESULTS: At week 4, nasal irrigation with 1.8% SPHNSI had significantly improved the Rcq-36 score (54% versus 50%; p < 0.032) and congestion symptom score (96% versus 84%; p < 0.018) compared to nasal irrigation with 0.9% CINSI. Adverse events were comparable for both groups at week 4.
CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study indicates that regular use of 1.8% SPHNSI in AR patients for 4 weeks is safe and has superior efficacy to 0.9% CINSI for alleviating congestion and improving quality of life scores.
Case Report: We report the case of a 58-year-old woman who presented to us with a chief complaint of recurrent right-sided epistaxis and nasal blockage for the past 4 months, which was progressively worsening. Histopathological examination confirmed the presence of a REAH instead of a sinonasal malignancy. The tumor was surgically excised from the lateral nasal wall using electrocautery under endoscopic guidance. The patient was then carefully followed-up after surgery, and the wound was successfully healed 3 months after the initial surgery. There was no evidence of recurrence 6 months after the initial surgery.
Conclusion: This case demonstrates the rare presentation of a REAH, which had arisen from the lateral nasal wall. Clinically, it is difficult to distinguish a REAH from a more notorious mass such as a sinonasal malignancy. Therefore, biopsy is mandatory in all cases of lateral nasal mass in order to rule out malignancy before confirming nasal REAH. Fortunately, as seen in this case, a lateral nasal REAH, once diagnosed, can be safely and easily removed from the lateral nasal wall using electrocautery with good surgical outcomes and a low rate of recurrence.