European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 266, Issue 5, pp 685–689 | Cite as

Effects of buffered 2.3%, buffered 0.9%, and non-buffered 0.9% irrigation solutions on nasal mucosa after septoplasty

  • Nilda Süslü
  • Münir Demir Bajin
  • Ahmet Emre Süslü
  • Oğuz Öğretmenoğlu


A prospective randomized study was designed to compare the effect of different irrigation solutions on mucociliary clearance and nasal patency and to compare the limitations of the used solutions, such as nasal burning by a visual analog scale. Forty-five patients who underwent septoplasty were divided into three groups postoperatively. Each group was administered with 2.3% buffered hypertonic seawater, buffered isotonic saline solution and non-buffered isotonic saline, respectively, as irrigation fluid. Saccharine test and acoustic rhinometer were used to determine mucociliary activity and nasal patency. Patients were asked about the burning sensation using a 10-cm visual analog scale. There was no significant difference in saccharine clearance time (SCT) on the 5th postoperative day between the three groups (P = 0.07). On the 20th day, there was a significant difference in SCT between the hypertonic buffered seawater group and non-buffered isotonic saline (P = 0.003). Buffered hypertonic seawater improved nasal airway patency more than the buffered isotonic saline (P = 0.004). Buffered hypertonic solutions used after endonasal surgery have been advantageous for both mucociliary clearance and postoperative decongestion.


Septoplasty Isotonic solutions Hypertonic solutions Mucociliary clearance 


Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Keojampa KB, Nguyen MH, Ryan MW (2004) Effects of buffered saline solution on nasal mucociliary clearance and nasal airway patency. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131:679–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Proctor DF (1982) The mucociliary system. In: Proctor DF, Andersen I (eds) The nose: upper airway physiology and the atmospheric envoriment. Elseiver Biomedical Press, New York, pp 245–278Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shone GR, Yardley MP, Knight LC (1990) Mucociliary function in the early weeks after nasal surgery. Rhinology 28:265–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Talbot AR, Herr TM, Parsons D (1997) Mucociliary clearance and buffered hypertonic saline. Laryngoscope 107:500–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robinson M, Regnis JA, Bailey DL et al (1996) Effect of hypertonic, amiloride, and cough on mucociliary clearance in patients with cystic fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 153:1503–1509PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Homer JJ, Dowley AC, Condon L et al (2000) The effect of hypertonicity on nasal mucociliary clearance. Clin Otolaryngol 25:558–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boek WM, Keles N, Graamans K et al (1999) Physiologic and hypertonic saline solutions impair ciliar activity in vitro. Laryngoscope 109:396–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wormald PJ, Cain T, Oates L et al (2004) A comparative study of three methods of nasal irrigation. Laryngoscope 114:2224–2227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daviskas E, Anderson SD, Gonda I et al (1996) Inhalation of hypertonic saline aerosol enhances mucociliary clearance in asthmatic and healthy subjects. Eur Respir J 9:725–732PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freidman M, Vidyasagar R, Joseph N (2006) A randomized, prospective, double-blind study on the efficiacy of Dead Sea salt nasal irrigations. Laryngoscope 116:878–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jose J, Ell SR (2003) The association of subjective nasal patency with peak inspiratory nasal flow in a large healthy population. Clin Otolaryngol 28:352–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Panagou P, Loukides S, Tsipra S et al (1998) The evaluation of nasal patency: comparison of patient and clinician assesments with rhinomanometry. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 118:847–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baraniuk JN, Ali M, Naranch K (2002) Hypertonic saline nasal provocation and acoustic rhinometry. Clin Exp Allergy 32:543–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nilda Süslü
    • 1
  • Münir Demir Bajin
    • 1
  • Ahmet Emre Süslü
    • 2
  • Oğuz Öğretmenoğlu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of MedicineHacettepe UniversitySihhiye, AnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineAbant İzzet Baysal UniversityBoluTurkey

Personalised recommendations