CPAP affected middle ear pressure and was directly proportional to the pressure of the CPAP. However, CPAP treatment had no significant effect on stapedial muscle reflex.
Objectives To evaluate the necessity of multiple salivary pepsin tests within a day when diagnosing laryngopharyngeal reflux. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Tertiary hospitals. Methods A total of 138 patients with signs and/or symptoms associated with laryngopharyngeal reflux were included. Salivary pepsin was detected on the day of 24-hour pH monitoring, and the results of salivary pepsin detected once in the morning and multiple times in 1 day were compared with the results of pH monitoring. Results Among the 138 patients, pH monitoring results were positive in 112. Salivary pepsin was positive in 47 cases in the morning, which was not consistent with the results of pH monitoring (kappa value = 0.117). With the pH monitoring results as the standard, the salivary pepsin detected once in the morning had a sensitivity of 38.4% (43/112) and a specificity of 84.6% (22/26) for the diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux. When salivary pepsin was detected multiple times per day, 102 patients tested positive. The consistency with pH monitoring was moderate (kappa value = 0.587). The sensitivity was 86.6% (97/112), and the specificity was 80.8% (21/26). Of the 97 patients with positive results from pH monitoring and salivary pepsin detected multiple times a day, 54 had negative findings for a single detection in the morning, indicating that 55.7% (54/97) of the true positive cases were missed. Conclusion Although a single detection of salivary pepsin in the morning is more economical, the sensitivity is too low, and it is necessary to detect it multiple times a day.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of bioabsorbable steroid-eluting sinus stents versus absorbable Nasopore packs after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Methods: One hundred eighty-one patients with CRS who underwent ESS were randomly assigned to receive a steroid-eluting sinus stent in one ethmoid sinus cavity, whereas the contralateral control side received a Nasopore pack. Endoscopic evaluations were performed 14, 30, and 90 days after the ESS. Postoperative intervention, polyp formation, adhesions, and middle turbinate (MT) position were assessed as efficacy outcomes. Results: The stents were successfully deployed in all 181 sinuses. Thirty days after the ESS, the stents significantly reduced the need for surgical intervention compared to the Nasopore ( P < .0001). The percentage of cases with polyp formation was significantly lower on the stent sides compared with the Nasopore sides ( P < .0001) at 14, 30, and 90 days after ESS. The percentage of severe adhesion was significantly lower on the stents sides than on the Nasopore sides at postoperative day 90 ( P = .0003), whereas they were not significantly lower at postoperative days 14 and 30. There were no significant differences between the stent sides and the Nasopore sides regarding the frequency of MT lateralization at all end points. No device-related adverse events occurred. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated significant improvement in the early postoperative outcomes by reducing the need for postoperative surgical intervention and polyp formation using steroid-eluting stents when compared with absorbable Nasopore packs. The steroid-eluting sinus stents and the Nasopore packs were each effective in preserving the ethmoid sinus patency and in preventing MT lateralization. A further prospective cohort study with long-term postoperative outcomes is warranted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.