A Postoperative Study on HVSI vs LVSI Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis
NCT ID: NCT02636959
Last Updated: 2016-05-20
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
UNKNOWN
Clinical Phase
EARLY_PHASE1
Total Enrollment
20 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2015-12-31
Study Completion Date
2017-06-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Chronic sinusitis (CRS) is a common inflammatory sinus condition among Canadians. Saline irrigation is an effective therapy used in the management of CRS and is a commonly prescribed treatment in preoperative surgery for people with this condition. Recently, a study performed by a Toronto group in Canada tried to show if there is any significant improvement between using high versus low volume saline irrigation to treat CRS. Despite finding a trend, the number of people with CRS used in this pilot study was not large enough to conclusively declare any difference between the two treatment groups.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a clinical benefit of high volume saline nasal irrigation (HVSI) over low volume saline irrigation (LVSI) in the postoperative period in patients with chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study is part of a multicenter collaborative project initiated by Macdonald et al. (20). A sample size of 176 participants (88 in each condition) is required to achieve data significance. To achieve this, our role is to collect data (plus those of four other Canadian rhinology research centres) from 20 patients and add our findings to theirs to establish an acceptable and significant result. This information would help otolaryngologists, family physicians, and other health care professionals recommend the best post-operative SNI (saline nasal irrigation) device for their patients with CRS.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a clinical benefit of high volume saline nasal irrigation (HVSI) over low volume saline irrigation (LVSI) in the postoperative period in patients with chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study is part of a multicenter collaborative project initiated by Macdonald et al. (20). A sample size of 176 participants (88 in each condition) is required to achieve data significance. To achieve this, our role is to collect data (plus those of four other Canadian rhinology research centres) from 20 patients and add our findings to theirs to establish an acceptable and significant result. This information would help otolaryngologists, family physicians, and other health care professionals recommend the best post-operative SNI (saline nasal irrigation) device for their patients with CRS.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Saline Irrigation After Surgery in Patients With Chronic Sinusitis
NCT01575223
Chronic Rhinosinusitis
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Endoscopic Sinus Surgery for Refractory Chronic Sinusitis
NCT02506426
Sinusitis
UNKNOWN
NA
Maxillary Sinus Irrigation in the Management of Chronic Rhinosinusitis
NCT00335309
Sinusitis
COMPLETED
NA
Ideal Frequency of Postoperative High Volume Saline Irrigations Following Endoscopic Sinus Surgery
NCT01680705
Rhinosinusitis
COMPLETED
NA
Early Saline Irrigation to Decrease Post-operative Endoscopic Debridement
NCT01943370
Chronic Rhinosinusitis
COMPLETED
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
BACKGROUND: Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common inflammatory condition of the upper respiratory tract lasting more than 8 to 12 weeks. Major symptoms include facial congestion/fullness, facial pain/pressure, nasal obstruction/blockage, purulent nasal drainage, and reduction or loss of smell. The diagnosis must include two major symptoms and either endoscopic evidence of polyps, edema or mucopurulent discharge from the middle meatus and/or CT changes in the mucosa of sinuses or osteomeatal complexes.
CRS has an estimated prevalence of 5% in the Canadian population, and up to 16% in some adult populations in the United States. Sinusitis is associated with a major societal health care burden, costing billions of dollars a year in North America. The medical treatment of CRS includes topical saline and corticosteroid sprays, systemic steroids and antimicrobials. Specifically, saline nasal irrigation (SNI) is a safe, nonpharmacologic treatment, and an important and efficacious component in the management of CRS. SNI can vary by concentration (e.g. hypertonic, isotonic, hypotonic) and device (e.g. bulb syringe, nasal mist, squeeze bottle).
The Mayo Clinic recently reviewed major expert consensus guidelines on the medical treatment of CRS. Although they recognized an overall paucity of controlled trials for any medical treatment, and a lack of a consensus or algorithm in the treatment of CRS, there is an overall consensus agreement of the use for SNI in this population. In this review, there was no mention of treatment of CRS in postoperative period, and no recommendation of what type of SNI is best.
Few studies examine various SNI formulations in the postoperative period. These were highlighted by Canadian authors in a recent exhaustive review of SNI in sinusitis. Three studies, all greater than 15 years old, include formulations that are not currently in popular use, or even available in North America. These did show that pressurized jets or sprays of seawater were more effective than nasal drops. More recently, Harvey et al. examined how irrigation is delivered and retained in the sinus, using more common devices. In a cadaveric model, they compared high volume saline nasal irrigation (HVSI) to low volume saline nasal irrigation (LVSI) devices and found a greater delivery (p\<0.02) in the former. To date there are no studies comparing HVSI to LVSI, using subjective patient benefit and objective endoscopic measure outcomes, in the postoperative CRS patient.
One study did examine two different SNI devices in the management of CRS. The authors recruited 150 subjects with CRS in the primary care setting, and randomized them to two weeks of SNI with a bulb syringe, SNI with a nasal irrigation pot, and a control group of reflexology massage. Hypertonic saline was used in both treatment groups. Subjective questionnaires were administered at baseline and at the end of the study period. Both groups significantly improved, with no significant difference between the two SNI devices. Patients equally preferred the two devices.
Popular HVSI and LVSI formulations with patients and physicians are NeilMed® Sinus Rinse™ and Salinex®, respectively. These are two examples of positive pressure treatments, which have enjoyed widespread usage in North America preceding sufficient evidence-based medicine demonstrating safety and efficacy. This is likely because topical saline sprays are considered safe; they do not require a prescription and perhaps most importantly the massive marketing campaign surrounding SNI devices. SNI devices have received significant news coverage and appearances on major television shows, including the Oprah Winfrey Show, the New York Times, and numerous internet videos.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a clinical benefit of high volume saline nasal irrigation (HVSI) over low volume saline irrigation (LVSI) in the postoperative period in patients with chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study is part of a multicenter collaborative project initiated by Macdonald et al. However, the sample size was not considered sufficient to conclude any significantly different effect between the two saline volumes (i.e. 86 participants); it was determined that a sample size of 176 (88 in each condition) was required (see attached in Section 9.8). To achieve this, our role is to collect data (plus those of four other Canadian rhinology research centres) from 20 patients and add our findings to theirs to establish an acceptable and significant result. This information would help otolaryngologists, family physicians, and other health care professionals recommend the best post-operative SNI (saline nasal irrigation) device for their patients with CRS.
HYPOTHESES: We hypothesize that there is an advantage of HVSI (NeilMed® Sinus Rinse™) over LVSI (Salinex®) in the early post-operative management in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. The mechanical effect of high volume irrigation helps ensure that a larger surface area of sinonasal mucosa is debrided and cleansed.
RESEARCH METHOD: This is a multicenter, randomized, single blind, controlled prospective study evaluating the subjective and objective outcomes of HSVI versus LSVI in patients who have endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for CRS. One month postoperative scores will be compared to preoperative scores. The expected total number of patients to be enrolled in this study is approximately 100 (20 patient per 5 institutions), with a planned completion time of one year. We will approach 20 patients who are offered ESS for CRS for our part of the study.
Pre-operative documents will include a consent form to participate in the research study, two subjective questionnaires (SNOT-22 and Nasal and Sinus Symptom Score) to be completed by the patient and an objective endoscopy scale (POSE) to be completed by the surgeon. Preoperative CT scans are usually obtained in patients having ESS for CRS. These will be graded using the Lund-McKay score. Finally, endoscopic sinonasal photos will be taken if resources at the specific institution allow it. These scales are described in further detail below.
Evaluation Tests The Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) survey is a rhinology-specific quality of life instrument, based on 22 items. It is a subjective scale that is completed by the patient. A lower score represents a better quality of life. The SNOT-22 is commonly used in clinical research, and is reliable, valid, responsive, and easy to use.
The Nasal and Sinus Symptom Score is a rhinology-specific questionnaire based on 5 items. Patients rate the severity of these symptoms from "None" to "Severe".
The Perioperative Sinus Endoscopy (POSE) scoring system was developed in Canada and is used to endoscopically assess the sinonasal cavities of patients who have had ESS. The surgeon assesses the inflammatory status of the sinonasal cavity contents, including the middle turbinate, the middle meatus, ethmoid cavity, frontal recess/sinus and sphenoid sinus. Each site is graded from 0 to 2 depending on the degree of inflammation and/or purulence seen. A total score is calculated out of a total of up to 20, depending on the extent of surgery. This scale has compared well with other similar validated scales such as the Lund-McKay endoscopy staging system.
The Lund-McKay score is used to quantify sinonasal inflammation on a CT scan. Each of the following is given a score of 0-2 depending on the degree of opacification: anterior ethmoids, posterior ethmoids, maxillary sinus, sphenoid sinus, frontal sinus, and osteomeatal unit. At total score is calculated out of 24, a high score indicating more severe disease. This scale is also widely used in the assessment of CRS, and is reliable and valid.
Intervention/Treatment:
On the day of the surgery, patients will be provided with a box containing either a HVSI (NeilMed SINUS RINSE) or LVSI (Salinex®). The patient will be randomized using a computer software program, and the box containing the spray will be the same regardless of which one is used. The directions will be the same irrespective of the system given: two sprays in each nostril two times daily.
In this way the surgeon will be blinded to whether the patient has a HVSI or LVSI. The patient will be clearly instructed to NOT tell the surgeon which device they were given. In addition, surgeons involved in the study will be instructed to NEVER ask the patient which device they used.
Harms and discomforts:
Saline irrigation, HVSI or LVSI, is considered a safe treatment with no adverse effects. Occasionally patients will feel some discomfort, but it is a well-tolerated therapy. We do not perceive any risks with this treatment.
Patients may withdraw from the study at any time for any reason. This will not affect patient care in any way.
Sinus surgeons routinely prescribe medications in the preoperative period, including antibiotics and topical and/or systemic steroids. Surgeons will be instructed to treat their patients, preoperatively as they normally would, with no alteration in treatment other than the randomized saline irrigation bottle.
At one month postoperatively, patients will be reassessed in the clinic. The SNOT-22, Nasal and Sinus Symptoms Score (by patients), and POSE (by surgeons) questionnaires will be completed, and endoscopic photos will be taken.
Preoperative and one-month postoperative SNOT-22, Nasal and Sinus Symptoms Score, and POSE scores for the HVSI and LVSI will be compared to determine if there is a significant difference in subjective and/or objective outcomes. Patients will be stratified according to disease severity using the preoperative questionnaires and the Lund-McKay score to determine if patients with varying disease severity benefit more from one delivery device over the other.
We hope to involve 5 sinus surgeons across Canada, mostly from academic tertiary care institutions. Each surgeon will involve 20 patients in this study, for a total study recruitment of 100 patients. Each surgeon will submit a proposal to his/her own institution's Research Ethics Board.
The data from all 5 surgeons will be collected by the primary investigator (AJ). Data will be sent in a confidential manner over secure fax. Patient names and other specific identifiers will not be included with correspondence.
PROPOSED DATA ANALYSIS: Data will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet and statistical analysis will be applied with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) vs.13. A total sample size was calculated at 100 patients (5 surgeons, 20 patients per surgeon at each institution) that would yield a useful and achievable analysis without being overly cumbersome. Because of the lack of research in this area, to achieve these study numbers alone would represent a significant achievement. Subsequently, data from these 100 patients would be added to those of the previously determined 86 (which will be sent by Dr. Macdonald in Toronto), placed onto the same spreadsheet and analyzed.
Implications of research: As stated above, our results may provide needed evidence for a common trend among Otolaryngologists. This will be the first study to document the value of different volume spray to treat postoperative sinus surgery; the results are potentially publishable in a major journal and would represent a major collaborative effort among Canadian Otolaryngologists. It would help maintain the University of British Columbia's and the Division of Otolaryngology's reputation in world-class research.
CRS has an estimated prevalence of 5% in the Canadian population, and up to 16% in some adult populations in the United States. Sinusitis is associated with a major societal health care burden, costing billions of dollars a year in North America. The medical treatment of CRS includes topical saline and corticosteroid sprays, systemic steroids and antimicrobials. Specifically, saline nasal irrigation (SNI) is a safe, nonpharmacologic treatment, and an important and efficacious component in the management of CRS. SNI can vary by concentration (e.g. hypertonic, isotonic, hypotonic) and device (e.g. bulb syringe, nasal mist, squeeze bottle).
The Mayo Clinic recently reviewed major expert consensus guidelines on the medical treatment of CRS. Although they recognized an overall paucity of controlled trials for any medical treatment, and a lack of a consensus or algorithm in the treatment of CRS, there is an overall consensus agreement of the use for SNI in this population. In this review, there was no mention of treatment of CRS in postoperative period, and no recommendation of what type of SNI is best.
Few studies examine various SNI formulations in the postoperative period. These were highlighted by Canadian authors in a recent exhaustive review of SNI in sinusitis. Three studies, all greater than 15 years old, include formulations that are not currently in popular use, or even available in North America. These did show that pressurized jets or sprays of seawater were more effective than nasal drops. More recently, Harvey et al. examined how irrigation is delivered and retained in the sinus, using more common devices. In a cadaveric model, they compared high volume saline nasal irrigation (HVSI) to low volume saline nasal irrigation (LVSI) devices and found a greater delivery (p\<0.02) in the former. To date there are no studies comparing HVSI to LVSI, using subjective patient benefit and objective endoscopic measure outcomes, in the postoperative CRS patient.
One study did examine two different SNI devices in the management of CRS. The authors recruited 150 subjects with CRS in the primary care setting, and randomized them to two weeks of SNI with a bulb syringe, SNI with a nasal irrigation pot, and a control group of reflexology massage. Hypertonic saline was used in both treatment groups. Subjective questionnaires were administered at baseline and at the end of the study period. Both groups significantly improved, with no significant difference between the two SNI devices. Patients equally preferred the two devices.
Popular HVSI and LVSI formulations with patients and physicians are NeilMed® Sinus Rinse™ and Salinex®, respectively. These are two examples of positive pressure treatments, which have enjoyed widespread usage in North America preceding sufficient evidence-based medicine demonstrating safety and efficacy. This is likely because topical saline sprays are considered safe; they do not require a prescription and perhaps most importantly the massive marketing campaign surrounding SNI devices. SNI devices have received significant news coverage and appearances on major television shows, including the Oprah Winfrey Show, the New York Times, and numerous internet videos.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a clinical benefit of high volume saline nasal irrigation (HVSI) over low volume saline irrigation (LVSI) in the postoperative period in patients with chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS). This study is part of a multicenter collaborative project initiated by Macdonald et al. However, the sample size was not considered sufficient to conclude any significantly different effect between the two saline volumes (i.e. 86 participants); it was determined that a sample size of 176 (88 in each condition) was required (see attached in Section 9.8). To achieve this, our role is to collect data (plus those of four other Canadian rhinology research centres) from 20 patients and add our findings to theirs to establish an acceptable and significant result. This information would help otolaryngologists, family physicians, and other health care professionals recommend the best post-operative SNI (saline nasal irrigation) device for their patients with CRS.
HYPOTHESES: We hypothesize that there is an advantage of HVSI (NeilMed® Sinus Rinse™) over LVSI (Salinex®) in the early post-operative management in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. The mechanical effect of high volume irrigation helps ensure that a larger surface area of sinonasal mucosa is debrided and cleansed.
RESEARCH METHOD: This is a multicenter, randomized, single blind, controlled prospective study evaluating the subjective and objective outcomes of HSVI versus LSVI in patients who have endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for CRS. One month postoperative scores will be compared to preoperative scores. The expected total number of patients to be enrolled in this study is approximately 100 (20 patient per 5 institutions), with a planned completion time of one year. We will approach 20 patients who are offered ESS for CRS for our part of the study.
Pre-operative documents will include a consent form to participate in the research study, two subjective questionnaires (SNOT-22 and Nasal and Sinus Symptom Score) to be completed by the patient and an objective endoscopy scale (POSE) to be completed by the surgeon. Preoperative CT scans are usually obtained in patients having ESS for CRS. These will be graded using the Lund-McKay score. Finally, endoscopic sinonasal photos will be taken if resources at the specific institution allow it. These scales are described in further detail below.
Evaluation Tests The Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) survey is a rhinology-specific quality of life instrument, based on 22 items. It is a subjective scale that is completed by the patient. A lower score represents a better quality of life. The SNOT-22 is commonly used in clinical research, and is reliable, valid, responsive, and easy to use.
The Nasal and Sinus Symptom Score is a rhinology-specific questionnaire based on 5 items. Patients rate the severity of these symptoms from "None" to "Severe".
The Perioperative Sinus Endoscopy (POSE) scoring system was developed in Canada and is used to endoscopically assess the sinonasal cavities of patients who have had ESS. The surgeon assesses the inflammatory status of the sinonasal cavity contents, including the middle turbinate, the middle meatus, ethmoid cavity, frontal recess/sinus and sphenoid sinus. Each site is graded from 0 to 2 depending on the degree of inflammation and/or purulence seen. A total score is calculated out of a total of up to 20, depending on the extent of surgery. This scale has compared well with other similar validated scales such as the Lund-McKay endoscopy staging system.
The Lund-McKay score is used to quantify sinonasal inflammation on a CT scan. Each of the following is given a score of 0-2 depending on the degree of opacification: anterior ethmoids, posterior ethmoids, maxillary sinus, sphenoid sinus, frontal sinus, and osteomeatal unit. At total score is calculated out of 24, a high score indicating more severe disease. This scale is also widely used in the assessment of CRS, and is reliable and valid.
Intervention/Treatment:
On the day of the surgery, patients will be provided with a box containing either a HVSI (NeilMed SINUS RINSE) or LVSI (Salinex®). The patient will be randomized using a computer software program, and the box containing the spray will be the same regardless of which one is used. The directions will be the same irrespective of the system given: two sprays in each nostril two times daily.
In this way the surgeon will be blinded to whether the patient has a HVSI or LVSI. The patient will be clearly instructed to NOT tell the surgeon which device they were given. In addition, surgeons involved in the study will be instructed to NEVER ask the patient which device they used.
Harms and discomforts:
Saline irrigation, HVSI or LVSI, is considered a safe treatment with no adverse effects. Occasionally patients will feel some discomfort, but it is a well-tolerated therapy. We do not perceive any risks with this treatment.
Patients may withdraw from the study at any time for any reason. This will not affect patient care in any way.
Sinus surgeons routinely prescribe medications in the preoperative period, including antibiotics and topical and/or systemic steroids. Surgeons will be instructed to treat their patients, preoperatively as they normally would, with no alteration in treatment other than the randomized saline irrigation bottle.
At one month postoperatively, patients will be reassessed in the clinic. The SNOT-22, Nasal and Sinus Symptoms Score (by patients), and POSE (by surgeons) questionnaires will be completed, and endoscopic photos will be taken.
Preoperative and one-month postoperative SNOT-22, Nasal and Sinus Symptoms Score, and POSE scores for the HVSI and LVSI will be compared to determine if there is a significant difference in subjective and/or objective outcomes. Patients will be stratified according to disease severity using the preoperative questionnaires and the Lund-McKay score to determine if patients with varying disease severity benefit more from one delivery device over the other.
We hope to involve 5 sinus surgeons across Canada, mostly from academic tertiary care institutions. Each surgeon will involve 20 patients in this study, for a total study recruitment of 100 patients. Each surgeon will submit a proposal to his/her own institution's Research Ethics Board.
The data from all 5 surgeons will be collected by the primary investigator (AJ). Data will be sent in a confidential manner over secure fax. Patient names and other specific identifiers will not be included with correspondence.
PROPOSED DATA ANALYSIS: Data will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet and statistical analysis will be applied with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) vs.13. A total sample size was calculated at 100 patients (5 surgeons, 20 patients per surgeon at each institution) that would yield a useful and achievable analysis without being overly cumbersome. Because of the lack of research in this area, to achieve these study numbers alone would represent a significant achievement. Subsequently, data from these 100 patients would be added to those of the previously determined 86 (which will be sent by Dr. Macdonald in Toronto), placed onto the same spreadsheet and analyzed.
Implications of research: As stated above, our results may provide needed evidence for a common trend among Otolaryngologists. This will be the first study to document the value of different volume spray to treat postoperative sinus surgery; the results are potentially publishable in a major journal and would represent a major collaborative effort among Canadian Otolaryngologists. It would help maintain the University of British Columbia's and the Division of Otolaryngology's reputation in world-class research.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Rhinosinusitis
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
SINGLE
Investigators
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
high volume saline irrigation (HVSI)
High volume nasal spray, NeilMed® Sinus Rinse, is a high saline nasal rinse that is a safe, nonpharmacologic treatment. Randomized participants will be asked to use the rinse for one month (twice daily) by following the manufacturer's guidelines and use of the squeeze bottle provided. Preoperative and one month Postoperative sinus surgery, the participants will complete subjective questionnaires and at one-month after surgery, endoscopic sinonasal photos will be taken. These data will be used to assess the quality of postoperative improvements after treatment.
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
saline irrigation
Intervention Type
OTHER
HVSI (NeilMed® Sinus Rinse™) versus LVSI (Salinex®) in the early post-operative management in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Both are a saline rinse spray.
low volume saline irrigation (LVSI)
Low volume nasal spray, Salinex Rinse, is a low saline nasal rinse that is a safe, nonpharmacologic treatment. Randomized participants will be asked to use the rinse for one month (twice daily) by following the manufacturer's guidelines and use of the squeeze bottle provided. Preoperative and one month Postoperative sinus surgery, the participants will complete subjective questionnaires and at one-month after surgery, endoscopic sinonasal photos will be taken. These data will be used to assess the quality of postoperative improvements after treatment.
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
saline irrigation
Intervention Type
OTHER
HVSI (NeilMed® Sinus Rinse™) versus LVSI (Salinex®) in the early post-operative management in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Both are a saline rinse spray.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
saline irrigation
HVSI (NeilMed® Sinus Rinse™) versus LVSI (Salinex®) in the early post-operative management in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Both are a saline rinse spray.
Intervention Type
OTHER
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Documented diagnosis of unilateral or bilateral CRS
* Documented failed medical treatment of CRS
* 18 to 65 years of age
* Planned ESS for the treatment of CRS
* Able to read and understand English
* Documented failed medical treatment of CRS
* 18 to 65 years of age
* Planned ESS for the treatment of CRS
* Able to read and understand English
Exclusion Criteria
* Pregnant
* Cystic Fibrosis
* Diagnosed immotile cilia syndrome
* Diagnosed immunodeficiency syndrome
* Diagnosed fungal sinusitis
* Sinonasal tumours or obstructive lesions
* Cystic Fibrosis
* Diagnosed immotile cilia syndrome
* Diagnosed immunodeficiency syndrome
* Diagnosed fungal sinusitis
* Sinonasal tumours or obstructive lesions
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Maximum Eligible Age
65 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of British Columbia
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Arif Janjua, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Vancouver Coastal Health
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Vancouver General Hospital/Otolaryngology Clinic
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Site Status
RECRUITING
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Canada
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Chen Y, Dales R, Lin M. The epidemiology of chronic rhinosinusitis in Canadians. Laryngoscope. 2003 Jul;113(7):1199-205. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200307000-00016.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Anand VK. Epidemiology and economic impact of rhinosinusitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2004 May;193:3-5. doi: 10.1177/00034894041130s502.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Ray NF, Baraniuk JN, Thamer M, Rinehart CS, Gergen PJ, Kaliner M, Josephs S, Pung YH. Healthcare expenditures for sinusitis in 1996: contributions of asthma, rhinitis, and other airway disorders. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999 Mar;103(3 Pt 1):408-14. doi: 10.1016/s0091-6749(99)70464-1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Van Cauwenberge P, Watelet JB. Epidemiology of chronic rhinosinusitis. Thorax. 2000 Oct;55 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S20-1. doi: 10.1136/thorax.55.suppl_2.s20. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Tomooka LT, Murphy C, Davidson TM. Clinical study and literature review of nasal irrigation. Laryngoscope. 2000 Jul;110(7):1189-93. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200007000-00023.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Rabago D, Zgierska A, Mundt M, Barrett B, Bobula J, Maberry R. Efficacy of daily hypertonic saline nasal irrigation among patients with sinusitis: a randomized controlled trial. J Fam Pract. 2002 Dec;51(12):1049-55.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Meltzer EO, Hamilos DL. Rhinosinusitis diagnosis and management for the clinician: a synopsis of recent consensus guidelines. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011 May;86(5):427-43. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0392. Epub 2011 Apr 13.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lavigne F, Alizadehfar R, Balter Met al. Optimizing the usage of saline nasal irrigation (SNI) in the management of common respiratory conditions: from clinical evidence to daily practice. Unpublished, submission in progress 2011.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Krayenbuhl M, Seppey M. [Efficacy of Rhinomer Force 3 in the postoperative course of endonasal surgery]. Rev Med Suisse Romande. 1995 Mar;115(3):249-52. No abstract available. French.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Seppey M, Schweri T, Hausler R. Comparative randomised clinical study of tolerability and efficacy of Rhinomer Force 3 versus a reference product in post-operative care of the nasal fossae after endonasal surgery. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1996 Mar-Apr;58(2):87-92. doi: 10.1159/000276805.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Pigret D, Jankowski R. Management of post-ethmoidectomy crust formation: randomized single-blind clinical trial comparing pressurized seawater versus antiseptic/mucolytic saline. Rhinology. 1996 Mar;34(1):38-40.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Harvey RJ, Debnath N, Srubiski A, Bleier B, Schlosser RJ. Fluid residuals and drug exposure in nasal irrigation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009 Dec;141(6):757-61. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2009.09.006.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Harvey RJ, Goddard JC, Wise SK, Schlosser RJ. Effects of endoscopic sinus surgery and delivery device on cadaver sinus irrigation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008 Jul;139(1):137-42. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2008.04.020.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Heatley DG, McConnell KE, Kille TL, Leverson GE. Nasal irrigation for the alleviation of sinonasal symptoms. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Jul;125(1):44-8. doi: 10.1067/mhn.2001.115909.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sweeney C. Short, Stout, Has a Handle on Colds. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/fashion/03skin.html. Accessed September 5th, 2011. Published Jan. 3rd, 2008.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Morley AD, Sharp HR. A review of sinonasal outcome scoring systems - which is best? Clin Otolaryngol. 2006 Apr;31(2):103-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01155.x.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Wright ED, Agrawal S. Impact of perioperative systemic steroids on surgical outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis: evaluation with the novel Perioperative Sinus Endoscopy (POSE) scoring system. Laryngoscope. 2007 Nov;117(11 Pt 2 Suppl 115):1-28. doi: 10.1097/MLG.0b013e31814842f8.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Hopkins C, Browne JP, Slack R, Lund V, Brown P. The Lund-Mackay staging system for chronic rhinosinusitis: how is it used and what does it predict? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Oct;137(4):555-61. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2007.02.004.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Desrosiers M, Evans GA, Keith PK, Wright ED, Kaplan A, Bouchard J, Ciavarella A, Doyle PW, Javer AR, Leith ES, Mukherji A, Robert Schellenberg R, Small P, Witterick IJ. Canadian clinical practice guidelines for acute and chronic rhinosinusitis. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011 May;40 Suppl 2:S99-193. English, French.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Macdonald KI, Wright ED, Sowerby LJ, Rotenberg BW, Chin CJ, Rudmik L, Sommer DD, Nayan S, DesRosiers M, Tewfik MA, Valdes CJ, Massoud E, Thomas D, Kilty SJ, Vescan A, Mechor B, Lavigne F, Fandino M, Javer AR, Witterick IJ. Squeeze bottle versus saline spray after endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis: a pilot multicentre trial. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2015 Jan-Feb;29(1):e13-7. doi: 10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4125.
Reference Type
RESULT
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
H15-02550
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Study of Nasal Irrigation Versus Nasal Spray for Chronic Nasal and Sinus Symptoms
NCT00318006
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Safety of Intranasal Irrigation Probiotics in Healthy Volunteers
NCT02933918
COMPLETED
NA
Topical Probiotic Sinus Irrigations for Treating Chronic Sinusitis
NCT05427695
RECRUITING
PHASE2
Efficacy and Complication of Gentamicin Nasal Irrigation in Chronic Rhinosinusitis
NCT01430026
COMPLETED
Coblation in Endoscopic Sinus Surgery
NCT01793987
UNKNOWN
NA
Investigating the Effect of Herbal Medicine Nasal Irrigation on Treatment of Chronic Rhinitis and Sinusitis
NCT04046393
UNKNOWN
PHASE2/PHASE3
Microbiota Transfer for Chronic Rhinosinusitis
NCT05454072
UNKNOWN
NA
Topical Irrigation Therapy for CRS
NCT02630472
TERMINATED
PHASE1/PHASE2
Postoperative Nasal Irrigation Using Mucolytic Agents
NCT01582555
UNKNOWN
NA
Early Versus Late Surgical Wait Times
NCT02636790
UNKNOWN
EARLY_PHASE1
Blown Nasal Secretion Measurements in Rhinosinusitis: Repeatability and Validity Compared to Nasal Lavage
NCT00292851
COMPLETED
Point-of-Care Computed Tomography (CT) Chronic Rhinosinusitis Study
NCT00871286
COMPLETED
NA
The Use of Antibiotic Sinonasal Rinse After Sinus Surgery
NCT02218307
COMPLETED
PHASE4
The Efficacy and Complication of Gentamicin Nasal Irrigation in Chronic Rhinosinusitis and Recurrent Sinusitis
NCT02582099
UNKNOWN
PHASE4
Manuka Honey Irrigation After Sinus Surgery
NCT01350193
COMPLETED
PHASE1/PHASE2
Canadian Health Economics, Outcome, and Effectiveness Comparison of Treatment in Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis
NCT01455948
TERMINATED
NA
Photodynamic Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Rhinosinusitis
NCT01854619
UNKNOWN
NA
The Efficacy of MEDIHONEY® for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyposis After Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery
NCT02562924
COMPLETED
NA
Gulf War Illness Nasal Irrigation Study
NCT01700725
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Comparing the Use of Saline or Saline Plus Gentamycin in Nasal Irrigation to Treat Chronic Sinusitis in Children
NCT00465530
COMPLETED
NA
Effect of Chinese Herbal Medicine Nasal Irrigation on the Postoperative Care of Chronic Rhinosinusitis
NCT07340411
RECRUITING
PHASE2
Sinopsys Lacrimal Stent Study for Patients With Chronic Sinusitis or CRS
NCT03066908
SUSPENDED
NA
The Optimal Head Position for Distributing Topical Nasal Medication Using the Mucosal Atomization Device
NCT02079792
COMPLETED
PHASE4