Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:38:34.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A prospective, single-blind, randomised, crossover study comparing three nasal hygiene systems and corresponding patient preference for such devices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2014

B Elmiyeh ,
R L Heywood ,
V M N Prasad ,
P Chatrath ,
P Bassett  and
R Quiney
B Elmiyeh*
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
R L Heywood
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Whipps Cross University Hospital, London, UK
V M N Prasad
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK
P Chatrath
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
P Bassett
Affiliation:
Biostatic Department, University College London, London, UK
R Quiney
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Behrad Elmiyeh, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, United Kingdom E-mail: belmiyeh@doctors.net.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To assess subjective preference using three nasal hygiene systems: Stérimar Original®, Emcur® and Sinus Rinse™.

Design:

We used a prospective, single-blind, randomised, crossover study to compare three nasal hygiene systems: Stérimar Original, Emcur and Sinus Rinse.

Subjects:

Eighteen adult volunteers were recruited and were asked to rate their experience over three days using three well-established nasal hygiene systems. A standard visual analogue scale was used to assess five criteria: (1) simplicity of instructions; (2) ease of use; (3) comfort; (4) perceived nasal clearance (effectiveness) and (5) single best overall system.

Results:

Stérimar Original was found to have the easiest instructions to understand compared to the other two systems. There was no significant difference between Stérimar Original and Sinus Rinse with regards to ease of use but they were both significantly easier to use than Emcur (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the three systems when comparing the last three criteria. There was no alteration in preference when the cost of each treatment was disclosed to the subjects, and no significant side effects were reported.

Conclusion:

The instructions accompanying Stérimar Original appeared to be the easiest to understand, while Stérimar Original and Sinus Rinse were easier to use than Emcur.

Keywords

Nasal LavageSaline SolutionNasal CavityPostoperative CareRhinitis
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 128 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 73 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Harvey, R, Hannan, SA, Badia, L, Scadding, G. Nasal saline irrigations for the symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(3):CD006394Google Scholar
2Papsin, B, McTavish, A. Saline nasal irrigation: its role as an adjunct treatment. Can Fam Physician 2003;49:168–73Google Scholar
3Tomooka, LT, Murphy, C, Davidson, TM. Clinical study and literature review of nasal irrigation. Laryngoscope 2000;110:1189–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Wormald, PJ, Cain, T, Oates, L, Hawke, L, Wong, I. A comparative study of three methods of nasal irrigation. Laryngoscope 2004;114:2224–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Hauptman, G, Ryan, MW. The effect of saline solutions on nasal patency and mucociliary clearance in rhinosinusitis patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;137:815–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Pynnonen, MA, Mukerji, SS, Kim, HM, Adams, ME, Terrell, JE. Nasal saline for chronic sinonasal symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;133:1115–20Google Scholar
7Horne, R, Weinman, J, Barber, N, Elliott, R, Morgan, M, Cribb, A et al. Concordance, Adherence and Compliance in Medicine Taking. Report for the National Co-Ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R & D (NCCSDO). London: NCCSDO, 2005.Google Scholar
8Department of Health. Pharmacy in England. Building on Strengths – Delivering the Future. Norwich: The Stationery Office, 2008;1–141Google Scholar
9Haynes, RB, Ackloo, E, Sahota, N, McDonald, HP, Yao, X. Interventions for enhancing medication adherence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(2):CD000011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Horne, R. Compliance, adherence and concordance. In: Taylor, K, Harding, G, eds. Pharmacy Practice. London, New York: Taylor & Francis, 2001;165–84Google Scholar
11Sabaté, E. Adherence to Long-Term Therapies; Evidence for Action. Geneva: WHO, 2003Google Scholar