↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of syringe-irrigation topical therapy and the influence of the middle turbinate in sinus penetration of solutions

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy of syringe-irrigation topical therapy and the influence of the middle turbinate in sinus penetration of solutions
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.06.013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guilherme Henrique Wawginiak, Leonardo Balsalobre, Eduardo Macoto Kosugi, João Paulo Mangussi-Gomes, Raul Ernesto Samaniego, Aldo Cassol Stamm

Abstract

The topical therapies are the best postoperative treatment option for chronic rhinosinusitis, especially those with high volume and pressure, such as the squeeze bottles. However, they are not an available option in Brazil, where irrigation syringes are used. To investigate the efficacy of topical sinonasal therapy with syringe and the influence of this process on the middle turbinate. Intervention study in training models (S.I.M.O.N.T.). After standard dissection, three interventions were performed (Nasal Spray 4 puffs, 60-mL syringe and 240-mL Squeeze Bottle) with normal and Sutured Middle Turbinate. Images of each sinus were captured after the interventions, totaling 144 images. The images were classified by 10 evaluators according to the amount of residual volume from zero to 3, with zero and 1 being considered poor penetration and 2 and 3, good penetration. The 1440 evaluations were used in this study. Considering all middle turbinate situations, the amount of good penetrations were 8.1% for Spray; 68.3% for Syringe, and 78.3% for Squeeze (p<0.0001). Considering all types of interventions, the Normal Middle Turbinate had 48.2% of good penetrations and the Sutured Middle Turbinate, 55% (p=0.01). Considering only Sutured Middle Turbinate, there was no difference between the interventions with Syringe and Squeeze (76.3% vs. 80.4%; p=0.27). Topical therapy of irrigation with a 60-mL syringe was more effective than that with nasal spray. The status of the middle turbinate proved to be fundamental and influenced topical therapy. Irrigation with syringe was as effective as the squeeze bottle when the middle turbinate was sutured to the nasal septum.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unknown 5 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#9,995,474
of 12,488,416 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#171
of 265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,834
of 378,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,416 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 265 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 378,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.