-
Frontiers in Oral Health 2022and studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of some irrigation protocols in reducing the bacterial load in the root canal system. However, standardized protocols...
BACKGROUND
and studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of some irrigation protocols in reducing the bacterial load in the root canal system. However, standardized protocols have not yet been defined for the real clinical context due to many irrigation procedures available.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical endodontic protocols and limitations of irrigating solutions in the disinfection of the root canal system in patients with apical periodontitis.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) published until January 2021. Hand searching was also performed. Studies focused on evaluating the effectiveness of irrigating solutions and/or irrigation activation methods in reducing the bacterial load in the root canal system were considered. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
RESULTS
Four hundred and twenty eight published articles were identified. After removing the duplicate studies and analyzing full texts, seven RCTs were selected. Two studies compared pure NaOCl with some combination of NaOCl with HEDP and MTAD. Two studies analyzed the antibacterial efficacy of NaOCl and chlorhexidine (CHX). Three studies compared conventional needle irrigation with different irrigation activation methods (PUI, XP-endo finisher, F-file activator, EndoVac activator). The review attained a satisfactory methodology. The main results of each included study were described.
DISCUSSION
Activation methods provide significantly higher biofilm reduction than conventional needle irrigation methods. Combinations of NaOCl with different chelating agents were ineffective in terms of antimicrobial, but it could potentially increase the risk of irrigant extrusion. However, the irrigating protocols were not carefully detailed, especially those regarding the irrigants application time or total volume. The existing literature lacks high-quality studies. The level of evidence is moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
The available data is too heterogeneous to compare and identify the superiority of specific valuable irrigation protocols in each clinical context. Application time, volume, and activation methods should be standardized to determine the optimal irrigating procedures to reduce the bacterial load and ensure higher predictability of the endodontic treatment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
(https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218555), PROSPERO registration: CRD42020218555.
PubMed: 35174355
DOI: 10.3389/froh.2022.838043 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... May 2012Effective irrigant delivery and agitation are prerequisites for successful endodontic treatment. Ultrasonic irrigation can be performed with or without simultaneous... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Effective irrigant delivery and agitation are prerequisites for successful endodontic treatment. Ultrasonic irrigation can be performed with or without simultaneous ultrasonic instrumentation. Existing literature reveals that ultrasonic irrigation may have a very positive effect on chemical, biological and physical debridement of the root canal system as investigated in many in vitro studies.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this review article was to summarize and discuss the available information concerning ultrasonic irrigation in endodontics.
METHODS
This article presents an overview of ultrasonic irrigation methods and their debridement efficacy. In this paper the relevant literature on passive ultrasonic irrigation is reviewed. Information from original scientific papers or reviews listed in MEDLINE and Cochrane were included in the review.
RESULTS
The use of ultrasound in the irrigation procedure results in improved canal cleanliness, better irrigant transfer to the canal system, soft tissue debridement, and removal of smear layers and bacteria. There are many in vitro studies, but there is a need to standardize protocols, and correlate the clinical efficacy of ultrasonic devices with improved treatment outcomes. Understanding the basis of ultrasonic irrigation is fundamental for clinicians and researchers to improve the design and use of ultrasonic irrigation.
Topics: Humans; Root Canal Therapy; Solutions; Therapeutic Irrigation; Ultrasonics
PubMed: 22143738
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.17621 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Although various solutions have been recommended for cleansing wounds, normal saline is favoured as it is an isotonic solution and is not thought to interfere with the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although various solutions have been recommended for cleansing wounds, normal saline is favoured as it is an isotonic solution and is not thought to interfere with the normal healing process. Tap water is commonly used in community settings for cleansing wounds because it is easily accessible, efficient and cost-effective; however, there is an unresolved debate about its use.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of water for wound cleansing.
SEARCH METHODS
For this fifth update, in May 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed wound cleansing using different types of water (e.g. tap water, distilled, boiled) compared with no cleansing or with other solutions (e.g. normal saline). For this update, we excluded quasi-RCTs, thereby removing some studies which had been included in the previous version of the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently carried out trial selection, data extraction and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials in this update including a total of 2504 participants ranging in age from two to 95 years. Participants in the trials experienced open fractures, surgical wounds, traumatic wounds, anal fissures and chronic wounds. The trials were conducted in six different countries with the majority conducted in India and the USA. Three trials involving 148 participants compared cleansing with tap water with no cleansing. Eight trials involving 2204 participants assessed cleansing with tap water compared with cleansing with normal saline. Two trials involving 152 participants assessed cleansing with distilled water compared with cleansing with normal saline. One trial involving 51 participants also assessed cleansing with cooled boiled water compared with cleansing with normal saline, and cleansing with distilled water compared with cleansing with cooled boiled water. Wound infection: no trials reported on wound infection for the comparison cleansing with tap water versus no cleansing. For all wounds, eight trials found the effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline is uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.19); very low-certainty evidence. Two trials comparing the use of distilled water with normal saline for cleansing open fractures found that the effect on the number of fractures that were infected is uncertain (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.09); very low-certainty evidence. One trial compared the use of cooled boiled water with normal saline for cleansing open fractures and found that the effect on the number of fractures infected is uncertain (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.87); very low-certainty evidence. This trial also compared the use of distilled water with cooled boiled water and found that the effect on the number of fractures infected is uncertain (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.47); very low-certainty evidence. Wound healing: results from three trials comparing the use of tap water with no wound cleansing demonstrated there may be little or no difference in the number of wounds that did not heal between the groups (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14); low-certainty evidence. The effect of tap water compared with normal saline is uncertain; two trials were pooled (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.07) but the certainty of the evidence is very low. Results from one study comparing the use of distilled water with normal saline for cleansing open fractures found that there may be little or no difference in the number of fractures that healed (RR could not be estimated, all wounds healed); the certainty of the evidence is low. Reduction in wound size: the effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline on wound size reduction is uncertain (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.68); the certainty of the evidence is very low. Rate of wound healing: the effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline on wound healing rate is uncertain (mean difference (MD) -3.06, 95% CI -6.70 to 0.58); the certainty of the evidence is very low.
COSTS
two trials reported cost analyses but the cost-effectiveness of tap water compared with the use of normal saline is uncertain; the certainty of the evidence is very low. Pain: results from one study comparing the use of tap water with no cleansing for acute and chronic wounds showed that there may be little or no difference in pain scores. The certainty of the evidence is low. Patient satisfaction: results from one study comparing the use of tap water with no cleansing for acute and chronic wounds showed that there may be little or no difference in patient satisfaction. The certainty of evidence is low. The effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline is uncertain as the certainty of the evidence is very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
All the evidence identified in the review was low or very low certainty. Cleansing with tap water may make little or no difference to wound healing compared with no cleansing; there are no data relating to the impact on wound infection. The effects of cleansing with tap water, cooled boiled water or distilled water compared with cleansing with saline are uncertain, as is the effect of distilled water compared with cooled boiled water. Data for other outcomes are limited across all the comparisons considered and are either uncertain or suggest that there may be little or no difference in the outcome.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Child, Preschool; Drinking Water; Fractures, Open; Humans; Middle Aged; Pain; Saline Solution; Sodium Chloride; Therapeutic Irrigation; Wound Infection; Young Adult
PubMed: 36103365
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003861.pub4 -
International Wound Journal Dec 2013Wounds, especially chronic wounds, represent a global problem costing millions of dollars per year in developed countries and are characterised by microbial... (Review)
Review
Wounds, especially chronic wounds, represent a global problem costing millions of dollars per year in developed countries and are characterised by microbial complications including local or overt infection, delayed healing and spread of multiresistant germs. Therefore, antimicrobial wound management is a major challenge that continues to require new solutions against microbes and their biofilms. As systemic antibiotics can barely penetrate into wound biofilms and topically applied ones can easily lead to sensitisation, antisepsis is the method of choice to treat germs in wounds. This brief review discusses the role of antiseptics in reducing bioburden in chronic wounds. Balancing antimicrobial potency and tolerability of antiseptic procedures is critical in wound therapy. However, antiseptics alone may not be able to achieve wound healing without addressing other factors regarding the patient's general health or the wound's physical environment. Although the precise role of bioburden in chronic wounds remains to be evaluated, planktonic as well as biofilm-bound microbes are indications for antiseptic intervention. Octenidine dihydrochloride and polyhexanide are the most effective, as well as best tolerated, antiseptics in wound management today, and new strategies to reduce bacterial wound burden and support the body's immune response are being developed.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bandages; Biofilms; Debridement; Foreign Bodies; Hemodynamics; Humans; Microcirculation; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Therapeutic Irrigation; Wound Healing; Wound Infection; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 24251838
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12175 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Allergic rhinitis is a common condition affecting both adults and children. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Allergic rhinitis is a common condition affecting both adults and children. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching, which may affect their quality of life.Nasal irrigation with saline (salty water), also known as nasal douching, washing or lavage, is a procedure that rinses the nasal cavity with isotonic or hypertonic saline solutions. It can be performed with low positive pressure from a spray, pump or squirt bottle, with a nebuliser or with gravity-based pressure in which the person instils saline into one nostril and allows it to drain out of the other. Saline solutions are available over the counter and can be used alone or as an adjunct to other therapies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of nasal saline irrigation in people with allergic rhinitis.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nasal saline irrigation, delivered by any means and with any volume, tonicity and alkalinity, with (a) no nasal saline irrigation or (b) other pharmacological treatments in adults and children with allergic rhinitis. We included studies comparing nasal saline versus no saline, where all participants also received pharmacological treatment (intranasal corticosteroids or oral antihistamines).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were patient-reported disease severity and a common adverse effect - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), individual symptom scores, general HRQL, the adverse effects of local irritation or discomfort, ear symptoms (pain or pressure) and nasal endoscopy scores. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (747 participants). The studies included children (seven studies, 499 participants) and adults (seven studies, 248 participants). No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Saline volumes ranged from 'very low' to 'high' volume. Where stated, studies used either hypertonic or isotonic saline solution.Nasal saline versus no saline treatmentAll seven studies (112 adults; 332 children) evaluating this comparison used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Saline irrigation may improve patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline at up to four weeks (SMD -1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.84 to -0.81; 407 participants; 6 studies; low quality) and between four weeks and three months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.39 to -0.48; 167 participants; 5 studies; low quality). Although the evidence was low quality the SMD values at both time points are considered large effect sizes. Subgroup analysis showed the improvement in both adults and children. Subgroup analyses for volume and tonicity were inconclusive due to heterogeneity.Two studies reported methods for recording adverse effects and five studies mentioned them. Two studies (240 children) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group and three only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.One study (48 children) reported disease-specific HRQL using a modified RCQ-36 scale. It was uncertain whether there was a difference between the groups at any of the specified time points (very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.Nasal saline versus no saline with adjuvant use of intranasal steroids or oral antihistamines Three studies (40 adults; 79 children) compared saline with intranasal steroids versus intranasal steroids alone; one study (14 adults) compared saline with oral antihistamines versus oral antihistamines alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient-reported disease severity at up to four weeks (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.15; 32 participants; 2 studies; very low quality) or from four weeks to three months (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.21; 58 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). Although none of the studies reported methods for recording adverse effects, three mentioned them: one study (40 adults; adjuvant intranasal steroids) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group; the other two only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.It is uncertain if saline irrigation in addition to pharmacological treatment improved disease-specific HRQL at four weeks to three months, compared with pharmacological treatment alone (SMD -1.26, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.05; 54 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.Nasal saline versus intranasal steroidsIt is uncertain if there was a difference in patient-reported disease severity between nasal saline and intranasal steroids at up to four weeks (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.65 to 3.77; 14 participants; 1 study), or between four weeks and three months (SMD 1.26, 95% CI -0.92 to 3.43; 97 participants; 3 studies), or indisease-specific HRQL between four weeks and three months (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.75; 83 participants; 2 studies). Only one study reported methods for recording adverse effects although three studies mentioned them. One (21 participants) reported two withdrawals due to adverse effects but did not describe these or state which group. Three studies reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) with saline, although one study reported that 27% of participants experienced local discomfort with steroid use. No other secondary outcomes were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Saline irrigation may reduce patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline irrigation at up to three months in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis, with no reported adverse effects. No data were available for any outcomes beyond three months. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. The included studies were generally small and used a range of different outcome measures to report disease severity scores, with unclear validation. This review did not include direct comparisons of saline types (e.g. different volume, tonicity).Since saline irrigation could provide a cheap, safe and acceptable alternative to intranasal steroids and antihistamines further high-quality, adequately powered research in this area is warranted.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Child; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Sprays; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic; Sodium Chloride; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 29932206
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012597.pub2 -
International Wound Journal Feb 2020The use of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell time (NPWTi-d) has gained wider adoption and interest due in part to the increasing complexity of...
The use of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell time (NPWTi-d) has gained wider adoption and interest due in part to the increasing complexity of wounds and patient conditions. Best practices for the use of NPWTi-d have shifted in recent years based on a growing body of evidence and expanded worldwide experience with the technology. To better guide the use of NPWTi-d with all dressing and setting configurations, as well as solutions, there is a need to publish updated international consensus guidelines, which were last produced over 6 years ago. An international, multidisciplinary expert panel of clinicians was convened on 22 to 23 February 2019, to assist in developing current recommendations for best practices of the use of NPWTi-d. Principal aims of the meeting were to update recommendations based on panel members' experience and published results regarding topics such as appropriate application settings, topical wound solution selection, and wound and patient characteristics for the use of NPWTi-d with various dressing types. The final consensus recommendations were derived based on greater than 80% agreement among the panellists. The guidelines in this publication represent further refinement of the recommended parameters originally established for the use of NPWTi-d. The authors thank Karen Beach and Ricardo Martinez for their assistance with manuscript preparation.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Consensus; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Therapeutic Irrigation; Wound Healing; Wound Infection
PubMed: 31667978
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13254 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jan 2017Heparin saline (HS) is theoretically superior to normal saline (NS) for maintaining the patency of central venous catheters (CVCs), but the comparative efficacy of them... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Heparin saline (HS) is theoretically superior to normal saline (NS) for maintaining the patency of central venous catheters (CVCs), but the comparative efficacy of them remains controversial. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of NS versus HS in the maintenance of the patency of CVCs in adult patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of NS vs. HS to maintain the permeability of CVCs among adult patients were included in our meta-analysis. References of relevant papers were reviewed manually. No language restriction was applied. Non-human studies were excluded. Pooled relative risk (RR) was calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We also performed subgroup analysis examining the effect of the duration of catheter placement on the outcome. All statistical tests were two-sided using a significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs involving 7875 subjects (with analysis at patient, catheter, lumen and line access level) were included in this meta-analysis. Whether in terms of pooled or local analysis (RR with 95% confidence interval spans 1), NS can be equally, if not more effective, in keeping the CVCs open. Of studies reporting secondary outcomes (maneuver needed, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, haemorrhage, central venous thrombosis and catheter-related bloodstream infection), heparinised saline was shown not to be superior to non-heparinised solution. Subgroup analysis in patients with short vs long term CVC placement was consistent with the main outcome partly and in particular for maintenance of catheter patency in patients with a long-term placement i.e. >30 days, the RR was 0.97 (n = 6589; 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.23; P = 0.796). However, for patients in whom the catheter was in place for <30 days, the RR was 1.52 (n = 1286; 95% CI = 1.02 to 2.27; P = 0.041).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this meta-analysis, HS is not superior to NS in reducing CVCs occlusion. But in the short term, the use of HS is slightly superior to NS for flushing catheters from a statistical point of view.
Topics: Adult; Catheter Obstruction; Central Venous Catheters; Heparin; Humans; Sodium Chloride; Therapeutic Irrigation; Thrombosis
PubMed: 28063456
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1585-x -
BMC Ophthalmology Feb 2022A simple technique to facilitate removal of subincisional cortex in cataract surgery is presented.
BACKGROUND
A simple technique to facilitate removal of subincisional cortex in cataract surgery is presented.
METHODS
A disposable 27-gauge blunt needle attached to a 5.0-ml syringe containing balanced salt solution (BSS) is introduced through the side port incision into the anterior chamber. The tip of the needle is directed toward the capsule fornix beneath the incision site, and BSS is flushed to disperse the remaining cortex. Thereafter, the coaxial irrigation/aspiration device is used to remove the loosened cortex.
RESULTS
This technique was used in 60 eyes of 60 patients with difficulty of removing cortical remnant in the subincisional space. Subincisional cortical material was successfully removed in 93.3% (56/60 eyes). There were no intraoperative and postoperative complications related to this procedure.
CONCLUSIONS
The hydro-dispersion technique is a simple and safe approach to remove the subincisional cortical material that is difficult to manage with the standard coaxial irrigation/aspiration device.
Topics: Anterior Chamber; Cataract Extraction; Humans; Lens, Crystalline; Phacoemulsification; Postoperative Complications; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 35177028
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-022-02314-0 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Mar 2016Optimal bowel preparation increases the cecal intubation rate and detection of neoplastic lesions while decreasing the procedural time and procedural-related... (Review)
Review
Optimal bowel preparation increases the cecal intubation rate and detection of neoplastic lesions while decreasing the procedural time and procedural-related complications. Although high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution is the most frequently used preparation for bowel cleansing, patients are often unwilling to take PEG solution due to its large volume, poor palatability, and high incidence of adverse events, such as abdominal bloating and nausea. Other purgatives include osmotic agents (e.g., sodium phosphate, magnesium citrate, and sodium sulfate), stimulant agents (e.g., senna, bisacodyl, and sodium picosulfate), and prokinetic agents (e.g., cisapride, mosapride, and itopride). A combination of PEG with an osmotic, stimulant, or prokinetic agent could effectively reduce the PEG solution volume and increase patients' adherence. Some such solutions have been found in several published studies to not be inferior to PEG alone in terms of bowel cleansing quality. Although combination methods showed similar efficacy and safety, the value of these studies is limited by shortcomings in study design. New effective and well-tolerated combination preparations are required, in addition to rigorous new validated studies.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Cathartics; Colonoscopy; Defecation; Drug Therapy, Combination; Gastrointestinal Motility; Humans; Medication Adherence; Polyethylene Glycols; Therapeutic Irrigation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26973388
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i10.2915 -
Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology Nov 2016Rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy (RCCT) is a common disease that may cause highly disabling shoulder pain. No treatment is required for asymptomatic calcifications;... (Review)
Review
Rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy (RCCT) is a common disease that may cause highly disabling shoulder pain. No treatment is required for asymptomatic calcifications; mild symptoms may be treated conservatively. Among several therapeutic options, ultrasound-guided percutaneous irrigation of calcific tendinopathy (US-PICT) is currently accepted as the first-line safe and effective treatment for RCCT, with significant pain improvement and a very low rate of minor complications. Different approaches have been reported to dissolve calcified deposits, all including the use of a fluid (local anesthetic or saline solution) and the use of one or two needles to inject and retrieve the fluid/dissolved calcium. This review describes both one-needle and two-needle US-PICT techniques, providing technical and practical information that can improve daily clinical practice.
Topics: Calcinosis; Humans; Tendinopathy; Therapeutic Irrigation; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 28002862
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1594285