The role of budesonide intrapolyp injection in the management of type 2 chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a randomised clinical trial.

PROBLEM: To assess the efficacy of budesonide intrapolyp injection in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. METHOD: Ninety patients were divided into three groups; group A was given oral prednisolone, group B was given budesonide intrapolyp injection weekly for five consecutive weeks and group C was given budesonide as nasal irrigation for one month. Patients were assessed using Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 score, total nasal polyp score, serum immunoglobulin E, absolute eosinophilic count, and morning cortisol level before treatment, one week and three months after completing their treatment. RESULTS: Total nasal polyp score decreased significantly in all groups compared to those at baseline. Reduction in the oral and injection groups was greater than the wash group (p2 = 0.004), (p3 < 0.001), and the same trend concerning Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 score (p2 < 0.001), (p3 < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Budesonide is an effective agent used in intrapolyp injection with no documented systemic or visual side effects that has comparable results with oral steroids.

The Efficacy of Budesonide as Intrapolyp Injection Agent in the Management of Type 2 CRSwNP.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide as an intrapolyp injection in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) in comparison to control and systemic steroids. METHOD: In a prospective double-blinded controlled randomized clinical trial, 150 patients with CRSwNP were divided into 3 groups in a ratio 1:1:1 where group (A) was given oral prednisolone 1 mg/kg tapered daily for 2 weeks, group (B) was given budesonide intrapolyp injection weekly for 5 consecutive weeks, and group (C) was given intrapolyp injection with saline as the control group. Patients were assessed upon Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) score, Total Nasal Polyp score (TNPS), Serum IgE, absolute eosinophilic count, and morning cortisol level before treatment, 1 week and 6 months after completing their treatment protocol. RESULTS: SNOT 22 score improved significantly in all groups compared to those at baseline. Reduction in the oral and injection groups was much greater than the control group (P2 < 0.001), (P3 < 0.001), and the same trend concerning TNPS score (P2 < 0.001), (P3 < 0.001) but with no significant change in the control group. CONCLUSION: Intrapolyp steroid injection is considered a safe and effective method in nasal polyposis with limited side effects in comparison to systemic steroids. Using Budesonide as an agent for intrapolyp injection appears to be promising. It's advisable in patients with multiple relapses or high-risk patients to avoid repeated courses of oral steroids. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 134:2085-2092, 2024.

Surgical Management of Bilateral Abductor Paralysis: Diode Laser Versus Coblation; A Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the results of both diode laser and coblation in the treatment of bilateral vocal fold immobility (BVFI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective clinical study was performed on 80 non-tracheostomised patients with bilateral vocal fold paralysis divided into two groups; Group A: diode laser, Group B: coblation. Medical Research Council "mMRC" Dyspnea scale, maximal phonatory time (MPT), Voice handicap index (VHI), and functional outcome swallowing scale (FOSS) were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively. Also, the VAS pain scale and operative time of both groups are recorded. RESULTS: Within each group, there was a statistically significant decrease in the mMRC dyspnea scale and maximum phonation time and a significant increase in VHI (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference between the studied groups postoperative and regarding the percent change of the MPT ( more decrease in the coblation group). Concerning the operative time and the VAS pain score, there was a statistically significant difference between the studied groups regarding operating time and the VAS pain scale (significantly lower in the coblation group) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both Coblation and diode laser are effective tools in the treatment of BVFI with similar minimal voice quality affection. The maximum phonation time decreased more in the coblation group, while the voice handicap index did not significantly differ between both groups. However, Coblation may be superior to diode laser in terms of less operative pain and shorter intraoperative time. Coblation may be more favorable for patients at risk of prolonged general anesthesia duration.