Saliva substitute mouthwash in nasopharyngeal cancer survivors with xerostomia: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Xerostomia is a prevalent sequelae among nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) survivors; yet, effective treatment protocols have been elusive. This study was a prospective randomized clinical trial to compare the effects of saliva substitute mouthwash in nasopharyngeal cancer survivors with xerostomia, between two treatment arms, conducted in a tertiary center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study measured the effects within 4 weeks in relation to summated xerostomia inventory (SXI) and unstimulated whole saliva (UWS). Patients randomized into the interventional arm were prescribed an immunologically active saliva substitute (IASS), while patients in the control arm were prescribed a non-immunologically active mouthwash as placebo. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 94 patients. There was a significant difference in SXI difference (p < 0.0001) and UWS difference (p < 0.0001) between control and interventional arms. No harmful side effects associated with the use of either mouthwash encountered throughout the study duration. CONCLUSION: IASS mouthwash significantly reduces subjective xerostomia scores measured using SXI and improves objective measurement of salivary flow using UWS among nasopharyngeal cancer survivors with xerostomia. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: IASS is significantly more effective in improving subjective and objective xerostomia measurements compared to non-immunologically active mouthwash. Additionally, this treatment is very safe, with superior side effect profiles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04491435.

Surgical management of cochlear implant in chronic otitis media patients: safe and sound.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implantation (CI) in cases with chronic otitis media (COM) was previously contraindicated but recent advances have made it possible. OBJECTIVE: To review surgical and audiological outcomes of COM patients that underwent CI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective review of patients above 18 years old. RESULTS: Ten patients with complete data were included. Patients were aged 24-69 years old. Tympanoplasty and mastoidectomy were performed before CI. Imaging was performed to rule out ossifications. Eight patients underwent a standard canal wall up with either cochleostomy or round window approach. One patient had additional canalplasty and tympanoplasty and another one had blind sac procedure respectively. Analysis of the hearing aided level with CI and hearing aid showed significant benefit provided by the CI (Z = 2.803, p = .005). DISCUSSION: Creating a dry and safe ear is important prior to CI. Definite hearing improvement is seen in all our cases that helped them to become independent again in their daily life. Hearing aid usage pre-CI might not be important as the hearing aids may continue to cause discharging ears and the benefits of hearing aids in severe to profound hearing loss are very minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Cochlear implant is safe and effective in COM patients.