Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T10:59:09.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ringer-Lactate solution versus isotonic saline solution on mucociliary function after nasal septal surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2006

Murat Ünal ,
Kemal Görür  and
Cengiz Özcan
Murat Ünal
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Mersin University, Faculty of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
Kemal Görür
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Mersin University, Faculty of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
Cengiz Özcan
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Mersin University, Faculty of Medicine, Mersin, Turkey
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Irrigation with isotonic saline is one of the most frequently used solutions after nasal surgery. However, the effect of saline solutions on mucociliary clearance is not well known. In a previous study, it was found that isotonic saline solution had a negative effect on ciliary beat frequency but Ringer-Locke solution had no effect in vitro. In this study we compared the effects of Ringer-Lactate solution and isotonic saline solution on mucociliary transport time before, and after, nasal septal surgery in patients with nasal septal deviation. We found that patients who used Ringer-Lactate solution as irrigation after surgery had a significantly better mucociliary transport time than the patients using isotonic saline solution (p < 0.05). In conclusion, it is better to use Ringer-Lactate solution instead of 0.9 per cent saline solution for nasal irrigation.

Keywords

NoseSurgical ProceduresOperativeNasal Lavage FluidSodium ChlorideIsotonic Solutions
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 115 , Issue 10 , October 2001 , pp. 796 - 797
Copyright
© Royal Society of Medicine Press Limited 2001