RESUMO
Background and objective Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an inflammatory condition affecting the nasal mucosa, and it causes olfactory dysfunction (OD) in up to 78.2% of patients. Corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment to shrink nasal polyposis, reduce inflammation, and improve olfactory function. While many delivery methods for topical nasal corticosteroids exist, there is scarce data on the efficacy of the various medication delivery methods to the olfactory cleft (OC). In light of this, this study aimed to compare the following delivery methods to the OC: conventional nasal spray (NS), nasal drops in the Kaiteki position (KP), and exhalation delivery system (EDS). Methods We evaluated 16 sinonasal cavities from eight cadaver specimens in this study. Each sinonasal cavity was administered fluorescein dye solution via NS, KP, and EDS. Following administration, nasal endoscopy was employed to capture staining patterns in the OC. OC staining was rated with scores ranging from 0 (no staining) to 3 (heavy staining) after each administration of dye solution. Mean OC staining ratings were calculated and compared using the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results The mean OC staining score for the different delivery methods was as follows - NS: 1.095 ± 1.008, EDS: 0.670 ± 0.674, and KP: 2.038 ± 1.097. Nasal drops in the KP had a significantly higher staining score compared to NS (p=0.041) and EDS (p=0.003). However, there was no significant difference in staining scores between NS and EDS. Conclusions Nasal drops in the KP are more effective at reaching the OC than NS or EDS and should be considered as a first-line modality for administering topical medications when treating OD.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite the significant morbidity associated with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) in individuals with asthma (CRSwA), there is a paucity of codified, evidence-based management strategies for CRS in this population. METHODS: Using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Review Databases, a systematic review was performed covering management strategies for CRSwA. A total of 5903 articles were screened, and 70 were included for full-text analysis. After application of exclusion criteria, 53 articles comprised the qualitative synthesis. The level of evidence was graded and benefit-harm assessments, as well as value judgment and recommendations, were provided RESULTS: Strong evidence confirms the benefit of oral and topical medications on sinonasal-specific outcomes in individuals with CRSwA; there is low-grade evidence demonstrating that these agents improve lung function and/or asthma control. Moderate to strong evidence suggests that endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) improves both sinonasal- and asthma-specific quality of life. Although there is insufficient to low evidence to indicate that ESS improves pulmonary function in this population, data indicate a positive impact of this intervention on asthma control. Biologic medications strongly improve both subjective and objective sinonasal- and asthma-specific outcomes. CONCLUSION: Evidence supports managing CRS in individuals with CRSwA in a stepwise fashion, starting with traditional nonbiologic oral and topical medication, and escalating to second-line treatments, such as ESS and biologics. Optimal treatment of individuals who have CRSwA often requires concurrent, directed management of asthma, as not all CRS interventions impact asthma status.
