European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck diseases 132 (2015) 281–285

Available online at

ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com

Review

Nasal irrigation: From empiricism to evidence-based medicine.

A review
P.-L. Bastier a , A. Lechot a , L. Bordenave b,c , M. Durand c , L. de Gabory a,∗,c
a
Service d’ORL et de chirurgie cervico-faciale, centre Michelet, hôpital Pellegrin, CHU de Bordeaux, place Amélie-Raba-Léon, 33076 Bordeaux cedex, France
b
U1026, bio-ingénierie tissulaire, université de Bordeaux, 33000 Bordeaux, France
c
CIC-IT, CHU de Bordeaux, 33000 Bordeaux, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Nasal irrigation plays a non-negligible role in the treatment of numerous sinonasal pathologies and
Nasal irrigation postoperative care. There is, however, a wide variety of protocols. The present review of the evidence-
Seawater based literature sought objective arguments for optimization and efficacy. It emerged that large-volume
Saline solution
low-pressure nasal douche optimizes the distribution and cleansing power of the irrigation solution in
the nasal cavity. Ionic composition and pH also influence mucociliary clearance and epithelium trophicity.
Seawater is less rich in sodium ions and richer in bicarbonates, potassium, calcium and magnesium than
is isotonic normal saline, while alkaline pH and elevated calcium concentration optimized ciliary motility
in vitro. Bicarbonates reduce secretion viscosity. Potassium and magnesium promote healing and limit
local inflammation. These results show that the efficacy of nasal irrigation is multifactorial. Large-volume
low-pressure nasal irrigation using undiluted seawater seems, in the present state of knowledge, to be
the most effective protocol.
© 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The heterogeneity of the literature makes it difficult to get any

Several national and international consensus conferences now
recommend nasal irrigation as adjuvant treatment in numerous
sinonasal pathologies [1–6]. It provides mechanical cleansing of
mucus, crust, cell debris and various air contaminants (pathogens,
allergens, airborne particles, etc.). It enhances mucociliary clear-
ance [7,8] and reduces the mucus contact time of airborne elements.
It reduces local concentrations of pro-inflammatory mediators
[9–11] and humidifies the nasal mucosa, notably postoperatively
and in many chronic sinonasal pathologies.
A recent meta-analysis of 10 controlled trials taken from a
review of 11,500 studies included more than 400 allergic rhini-
tis patients [7]. Regular saline irrigation in adults and children
improved nasal symptomatology in 35% of cases and quality of life
in 30%. Mucociliary clearance on saccharine test was increased by
about 30%. The impact on medical drug consumption was harder to
quantify; moreover, the included population was small for such a
common treatment, and methods and administration times varied
greatly, limiting the scientific value of the study [7].
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ludovic.de-gabory@chu-bordeaux.fr (L. de Gabory).
clear idea concerning the various solutions and means of admin-
istration. Irrigation solution composition would seem to be an
important issue: chronic patients sometimes report improvement
with sea bathing, and some studies suggest that irrigation solutions
taken from certain seas provide better functional improvement
[12,13].
The present article comprises a literature review and update on
the various solutions and means of administration available.
1.1. Means of irrigation
To the best of our knowledge, there is no consensus regarding
means of irrigation. A study of the cavity distribution of 40 mL
of radio-opaque substance in healthy subjects reported benefit
with positive pressure irrigation versus negative pressure admin-
istration (by sniffing) or nebulization: nasal cavity and sinus
distribution was more exhaustive [14]. Wormald et al., using 5 mL
Tc99m-labeled irrigation solution, found better nasal cavity and
sinus distribution with douche administration than nebulization
or sprays [15].
We found no studies, comparative or not, in the literature
focusing on syringe administration, despite this being the most
widespread method. Several studies reported greater efficacy with
large-volume irrigation [16,17]. A recent study compared 26 nasal

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2015.08.001
1879-7296/© 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
282 P.-L. Bastier et al. / European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck diseases 132 (2015) 281–285

Table 1 100% 2
6
Composition (mg/L) of physiological saline, electrodialyzed seawater and Ringer’s 12
8
26
lactate [40,48]. 80%
23 Main elements (calcium,
61 potassium, magnesium)
Physiological Seawater Ringer’s lactate
60% 56
saline (Physiomer® ) (source: Vidal® 40 Buffers (bicarbonate, nitrate,
[40,48] dictionary 2014) 46
sulfate)
40%

Sodium 3500 2400–2600 3000 Chloride

Chloride 5500 5400–6300 3900
Magnesium 1100–1500
Calcium 280–390 120
Potassium 44–62 150
Sulfates 2755
Lactates 2500
Iron 6 versus seawater (biochemical analyses provided by Laboratoire de la Mer® ).
Zinc 27–90
Selenium 38
Copper 13–40
pH 4.5–7 8 6–7.5
irrigation devices available on the German market [18], testing
them on a resin nasal cavity model based on normal non-congested
cadaver nostrils. Irrigation volumes ranged from 30 to 500 mL, for
a mean 200–250 mL. The greater the irrigation volume, the larger
the cavity area covered by the irrigation: large-volume irrigation
reaches a larger proportion of the nasal cavities. Depending on
volume and device, application time ranged between 6 and 54 s,
and output between 3.9 and 27.2 mL/s. Only compression systems
delivering ≥120 mbar pressure reached the entire nasal cavity. The
authors added that tight fit between nozzle and nostril and the pos-
sibility of inserting the nozzle into the vestibule and orienting it 45◦
upward optimized cavity coverage and minimized loss of irrigation
solution [18]. It also appeared that good ergonomics, irrigation
quality and microbial safety were associated with devices that were
transparent, equipped with an anti-reflux nozzle, in high-quality
supple and compressible plastic, with ≥5 mL/s output or ≥120 mbar
administration pressure, that could be taken apart and washed by
hand or in a dishwasher, and were adapted for microwave ovens.
Clinically, a prospective single-blind randomized study com-
pared postoperative efficacy between two commercially available
nasal irrigation devices; in 31 endonasal surgery patients,
large-volume low-pressure irrigation was associated with better
postoperative nasal cavity cleansing on the Lund-Mackay postop-
erative endoscopy score than low-volume high-pressure irrigation
[19].
1.2. In vitro data
1.2.1. Composition of commercially available solutions
It is important to be aware of the fact that the exact compo-
sition of the various products and recipes could not be found in
the literature, except for Physiomer®1 and Ringer’s lactate. Table 1
and Fig. 1 show the chemical compositions of the various nasal
irrigation solutions. There are several “recipes” for “home-made”
saline, with or without buffer, that patients can make up themselves
at home, using water, salt and, in some cases, sodium bicarbonate.
Unlike normal saline (NaCl 0.9%), composition and sterility are nei-
ther controllable, reproducible or reliable. Home-made solutions
using “sea” salt contain only chloride ions and sodium.
There are also commercially available products consist-
ing of seawater diluted to one-third in distilled water (e.g.,
Stérimar®2 , Marimer®3 , Vicks®4 ) to obtain an isotonic solution.
1
Laboratoire de la Mer® , ZAC La Madeleine, avenue du Général-Patton, Saint-
Malo, France.
2
Laboratoires Fumouze, SOFIBEL, Church & Dwight Group, New York, USA.
3
Laboratoire Gilbert, Batteur Group, Hérouville Saint-Clair, France.
4
Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals France, Asnière-sur-Seine, France.
20% 39
32 32
19
Sodium
0%
Physiological Ringer's Lactate Seawater(pH=8) Electrolyzed
saline (pH=5) (pH=6,5) seawater (pH=8)
Fig. 1. Physical and chemical characteristics of various isotonic saline solutions
Although these are marketed as “seawater”, the one-third
dilution conserves only part of the naturally present miner-
als, which are themselves proportionally diluted (http://www.
sterimar.com/en/nasal-family-solutions.php). Another product
consists of electrodialyzed seawater (Physiomer® ), providing
an isotonic solution with reliable osmolarity, while conserving
high concentrations of the main seawater ions (https://register.
epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP98460042). Its composi-
tion is known and can be compared to physiological saline and
Ringer’s lactate (Table 1). Products obtained by this procedure are,
like Ringer’s lactate, rich in calcium, potassium and magnesium
ions and buffering (bicarbonates), with low sodium ion content
(Table 1). Like seawater, they have slightly alkaline pH (controlled
pH close to 8), while normal saline is acidic, with pH varying from
4.5 to 7.
1.2.2. Role of the various components
It is now agreed that, in vitro, these ions show non-negligible
action on epithelial cells. Sodium ions can inhibit hair-cell cal-
cium flow, thus reducing ciliary beat frequency [20]. Magnesium
ions reduce local inflammation by reducing mediator secretion
[21] and degranulation [22] in cells implicated in allergy. Para-
doxically, they increase IL-8 secretion by nasal epithelial cells [23].
Finally, magnesium and zinc can reduce respiratory mucosa cell
apoptosis during inflammatory processes [24]. Calcium is involved
in regulating ciliary beat frequency and synchronization, via vari-
ous ciliated cell surface receptors [25], in all of which acetylcholine
and serotonin act as messengers by increasing cell calcium intake
[25]. Airflow also stimulates cell calcium intake and ciliary beat via
shear-stress-induced mechanotransduction [25]. Potassium pro-
motes respiratory epithelium repair via the EGF/EGFR pathway
[26,27]. Bicarbonate ions, as well as acting as buffer, efficiently
reduce mucus viscosity, thus facilitating elimination by ciliated cell
movement [28].
1.2.3. Role of pH and tonicity
In vitro, solutions with pH <7 or >10 reduced tracheal mucosa
ciliary beat frequency in rats and chicken embryos [29]. In humans,
solutions with acidic pH likewise reduced ciliary beat frequency,
while slightly alkaline solutions enhanced it [30,31]. In vivo, on the
other hand, in humans, pH impact on mucociliary clearance is more
difficult to ascertain. England et al. found no statistical correlation
between pH and mucociliary clearance in 56 healthy non-smokers
[32]. More recently, Chusakul et al. reported clear improvement
in symptoms with alkaline isotonic solutions in allergic rhinitis;
mucociliary clearance, on the other hand, was unaffected whatever
the pH, in a range from 6.2 to 8.4 [33]. However, change in mucocil-
iary clearance seems not to depend exclusively on pH: in vitro, in
chicken embryo tracheal explants, hypertonic (1.5%) and hypotonic
(0.45%) irrigation both reduced ciliary beat frequency as compared
to physiological (0.9%) saline [29]. Beat arrest was irreversible with
a 14% solution, and hypertonicity triggered mucus hypersecretion
Table 2
Main prospective comparative randomized clinical studies comparing efficacy and tolerance for nasal irrigation solutions in various sinonasal indications.

Author, year Study design Indication Population Series Treatment Groups Group size Assessment criterion P Level of
size time (weeks) evidence

Multicenter Type of
comparison

Slapak et al., 2008 Yes Open Acute rhinitis Children 401 12 A Standard treatment 101 Nasal secretion P < 0.05* (B > A) I
[48] or non- B Standard treatment 289 abundance and
complicated + electrodialyzed type
flu seawater

P.-L. Bastier et al. / European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck diseases 132 (2015) 281–285
Strnad et al., 2007 Yes Open Allergic and Adults and 238 6 A Rhinocorticoids 78 Nasal index P < 0.05* (B > A I
[46] non-allergic children + antihistamines score and C > A)
rhinosinusitis B Electrodialyzed 80
seawater
+ rhinocorticoids
+ antihistamines
C Electrodialyzed 80
seawater
+ antihistamines
Friedman et al., No Double-blind Chronic Adults 114 4 A Hypertonic Dead Sea 59 SNOT P = 0.082 I
2012 [47] rhinosinusitis water 20
B Hypertonic saline 55
+ rhinocorticoids
Wang et al., 2009 No Open Acute sinusitis Children 69 3 A Isotonic saline 30 PRQLQ (Pediatric P < 0.05* II
[49] B No irrigation 39 Rhinoconjunctivitis (A > B)
Quality of Life
Questionnaire)
Friedman et al., No Double-blind Chronic Adults 42 4 A Hypertonic Dead Sea 22 Rhinosinusitis P = 0.003* (A > B) II
2006 [13] rhinosinusitis water symptoms
B Hypertonic saline 20

Chusakul et al., No Double-blind Allergic rhinitis Adults 36 1.5 A Isotonic saline 12 Rhinologic P > 0.05 II
2013 [33] B Buffered moderately 12 symptoms
alkaline isotonic saline
C Buffered strongly 12
alkaline isotonic saline
Ünal et al., 2001 No nk Post- Adults 32 3 A Ringer’s lactate nk Saccharine P < 0.05* (A > B) II
[50] septoplasty B Isotonic saline nk mucociliary
clearance test
Li et al., 2009 [43] No Open Moderate to Children 26 12 A Rhinocorticoids 6 Rhinologic P < 0.05* (C > A II
severe + antihistamines symptoms and C > B)
permanent B Isotonic saline 9
allergic rhinitis + antihistamines
C Isotonic saline 12
+ rhinocorticoids
+ antihistamines
Garavello et al., No Open Seasonal Children 20 6 A Hypertonic saline 10 Daily rhinitis P < 0.05* II
2003 [42] allergic rhinitis B No irrigation 10 score (A > B)

Pigret and No Single-blind Post- Adults 20 3 A Electrodialyzed 10 Weight of P > 0.05 II

Jankowski, 1996 endoscopic seawater crusts and
[51] ethmoidec- B Isotonic physiological 10 secretions
tomy for saline
sinonasal + benzododecinium
polyposis + oleosorbate

* Statistical significative difference; nk: not known.

283
284 P.-L. Bastier et al. / European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck diseases 132 (2015) 281–285
and increased the permeability of tight junctions [34–36]. These
data correlated in vivo with increased secretion and exudation in
response to hypertonic solutions [37]. Paradoxically, other authors
reported improved in vivo mucociliary clearance on saccharine test
in healthy subjects with hypertonic solutions between 3% and 5%
[38,39].
1.2.4. Advantages of seawater
Since 1995, it has been shown that seawater promotes cell
growth, with a significantly stronger eutrophic effect than nor-
mal saline or seawater at one-third dilution [40]. In a more recent
in vitro study, 2 to 4 hours’ exposure to electrodialyzed seawa-
ter enhanced viability in deprived bronchial epithelial cells as
compared to isotonic normal saline [11]. In other studies, seawa-
ter significantly protected pig nasal mucosa against the effects of
twice-daily 0.1% oxymetazoline (inflammation, fibrosis, metapla-
sia) [41].
In vitro, electrodialyzed seawater reduced production of pro-
inflammatory molecules such as IL-8 or RANTES [10,11], involved
in the recruitment and activation of polynuclear neutrophils and
eosinophils.
Thus, in vitro at least, it would seem that limited sodium chlo-
ride content is important for nasal irrigation solutions. Conversely,
calcium provides an advantage in terms of restoring epithelial
trophicity and mucociliary efficacy. Potassium should provide ben-
efit in postoperative situations and/or certain chronic rhinosinusitis
via its action on anti-inflammatory response; slightly alkaline pH
with isotonic composition should have a similar effect.
1.3. Clinical advantages of undiluted seawater over other
irrigation solutions
Certain studies reported clinical superiority for mineral-rich
solutions compared to classic saline, but data are sparse (Table 2).
In allergic rhinitis, iso- and hypertonic saline improved all
symptoms in children, reducing recourse to antihistamines and
corticosteroids [42,43], with excellent tolerance [44,45]. In 2007,
a multicenter randomized study assessed the efficacy of electro-
dialyzed 2.2% hypertonic Saint-Malo seawater in 238 allergic or
non-allergic chronic rhinosinusitis patients, and found strongly sig-
nificantly superiority for nasal irrigation (with or without local
corticosteroids) versus controls (antihistamines with local cortico-
steroids, without irrigation) in terms of symptoms and of recourse
to corticosteroids [46]. Cordray et al. likewise reported that nasal
irrigation with water from the Dead Sea, without antihistamines,
was as effective as local corticosteroids in controlling nasal and ocu-
lar symptoms in mild-to-moderate seasonal allergic rhinitis [12].
Friedman et al., in a prospective randomized double-blind study,
found greater improvement in symptom scores in 42 allergic or
non-allergic chronic rhinosinusitis patients with Dead Sea water
versus hypertonic saline [13]. The same author, using the same
methodology, more recently reported a similar improvement in
symptoms in 114 patients with irrigation with hypertonic Dead Sea
water without corticotherapy versus hypertonic saline with local
corticosteroids [47].
In acute infection, two prospective randomized studies showed
better treatment with nasal irrigation. The first, a controlled mul-
ticenter study of 390 children with rhinitis, found faster improve-
ment in nasal permeability and the quality and quantity of secretion
with electrodialyzed seawater irrigation than in a control group
without irrigation [48]. It also demonstrated that irrigation reduced
number of episodes, ENT complications and medication (antipyret-
ics, antibiotics, mucolytics and decongestants) in children suffering
from frequent rhinitis [48]. The second, single-center, study of
69 children with acute sinusitis, found that standard treatment
(antibiotics, mucolytics and local nasal decongestants) reduced
symptoms more effectively when associated to nasal irrigation
with an isotonic solution [49]. Both studies showed the efficacy of
irrigation in these respective pathologies, but did not demonstrate
the superiority of either solution, as there was no comparative arm.
In postoperative use, nasal irrigation is essential for cleansing
the crusts and secretions inherent to any sinonasal surgery. It sig-
nificantly reduces nasal secretion and shows a tendency to reduce
postsurgical edema. Ringer’s lactate, which is rich in calcium and
potassium and less rich in sodium and chloride ions than isotonic
saline, provided a stronger increase in mucociliary transport than
isotonic saline after endonasal surgery [50].
Few studies have focused on postoperative seawater irrigation
[51–53], and they lacked control groups without postoperative care
to remove clots, crusts and secretion. Pigret and Jankowski found
no significant difference between the effects of pressurized seawa-
ter and saline with antiseptics and mucolytics, in a small series (10
patients per group) [51]. Keerl et al., in an observational study of 121
patients, found nasal irrigation to be well tolerated, and that some
patients continued in the long-term, including irrigation in their
daily life routine [52]. Pinto et al. found no symptomatic benefit
of irrigation, whether iso- or hypertonic [53], and recommended
not implementing postoperative irrigation; their study, however
involved certain defects: no inclusion criteria, and no details of sur-
gical technique, numerous revision surgeries and application of an
endonasal hemostasis substance. Moreover, the symptoms scores
used were not validated, and final nasal cavity status was not noted
[53].
Finally, certain preservatives, antiseptics and mucolytics have
sometimes been associated to irrigation solutions. They slowed
or arrested ciliary beat, and showed no clinical benefit [51,54,55].
A recent meta-analysis confirmed the non-superiority of adding
an antibiotic and an antifungal agent to the irrigation solution in
chronic rhinosinusitis [6].
2. Conclusion
Founded on empirical practice and common sense, nasal
irrigation now plays an essential and self-evident role for the
large majority of practitioners. The heterogeneity of protocols and
studies make for confusion. It would, however, appear that: large-
volume irrigation provides good distribution over the sinonasal
cavities as a whole; and a stable, reproducible isotonic solution
with slightly alkaline pH and a composition close to that of sea-
water optimizes trophic and functional recovery of the respiratory
epithelium. Clinically, the literature fails to prove any clear superi-
ority of one product over the others; however, the in vitro properties
of undiluted seawater seem to provide definite advantage in many
clinical situations, as compared with physiological saline. Further
studies will be needed to confirm the present findings.
Disclosure of interest
L. de Gabory: occasional expert reports, consultancy and guest
speaker for Laboratoire de la Mer® .
The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
concerning this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Laboratoire de la Mer® for the data for the
composition of the irrigation solutions shown in Fig. 1.
References
[1] Société française d’oto-rhino-laryngologie. Recommandation pour la
pratique clinique : les thérapeutiques périopératoires en chirurgie
 P.-L. Bastier et al. / European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck diseases 132 (2015) 281–285
endonasale; 2001 [accessed November 21, 2013] http://www.orlfrance.
org/download.php?id=61
[2] Price D, Bond C, Bouchard J, Costa R, Keenan J, Levy ML, et al. International
Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG) guidelines: management of allergic
rhinitis. Prim Care Respir J 2006;15:58–70.
[3] Rosenfeld RM, Andes D, Bhattacharyya N, Cheung D, Eisenberg S, Ganiats TG,
et al. Clinical practice guideline: adult sinusitis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2007;137:S1–31.
[4] Harvey R, Hannan SA, Badia L, Scadding G. Nasal saline irrigations for
the symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007:
CD006394.
[5] Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Mullol J, Bachert C, Alobid I, Baroody F, et al. EPOS 2012:
European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2012. A summary
for otorhinolaryngologists. Rhinology 2012;50:1–12.
[6] Wei CC, Adappa ND, Cohen NA. Use of topical nasal therapies in the manage-
ment of chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope 2013;123:2347–59.
[7] Hermelingmeier KE, Weber RK, Hellmich M, Heubach CP, Mösges R. Nasal
irrigation as an adjunctive treatment in allergic rhinitis: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2012;26:e119–25.
[8] Satdhabudha A, Poachanukoon O. Efficacy of buffered hypertonic saline nasal
irrigation in children with symptomatic allergic rhinitis: a randomized double-
blind study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2012;76:583–8.
[9] Georgitis JW. Nasal hyperthermia and simple irrigation for perennial rhinitis.
Changes in inflammatory mediators. Chest 1994;106:1487–92.
[10] Tabary O, Muselet C, Yvin JC, Halley-Vanhove B, Puchelle E, Jacquot J. Phys-
iomer reduces the chemokine interleukin-8 production by activated human
respiratory epithelial cells. Eur Respir J 2001;18:661–6.
[11] Tabary O, Muselet C, Miesch MC, Yvin JC, Clément A, Jacquot J. Reduction of
chemokine IL-8 and RANTES expression in human bronchial epithelial cells by
a sea-water derived saline through inhibited nuclear factor-kappaB activation.
Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003;309:310–6.
[12] Cordray S, Harjo JB, Miner L. Comparison of intranasal hypertonic dead sea
saline spray and intranasal aqueous triamcinolone spray in seasonal allergic
rhinitis. Ear Nose Throat J 2005;84:426–30.
[13] Friedman M, Vidyasagar R, Joseph N. A randomized, prospective, double-
blind study on the efficacy of dead sea salt nasal irrigations. Laryngoscope
2006;116:878–82.
[14] Olson DEL, Rasgon BM, Hilsinger Jr RL. Radiographic comparison of three meth-
ods for nasal saline irrigation. Laryngoscope 2002;112:1394–8.
[15] Wormald P-J, Cain T, Oates L, Hawke L, Wong I. A comparative study of three
methods of nasal irrigation. Laryngoscope 2004;114:2224–7.
[16] Pynnonen MA, Mukerji SS, Kim HM, Adams ME, Terrell JE. Nasal saline for
chronic sinonasal symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Otolaryngol
Head Neck Surg 2007;133:1115–20.
[17] Harvey RJ, Goddard JC, Wise SK, Schlosser RJ. Effects of endoscopic sinus surgery
and delivery device on cadaver sinus irrigation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2008;139:137–42.
[18] Campos J, Heppt W, Weber R. Nasal douches for diseases of the nose and the
paranasal sinuses – a comparative in vitro investigation. Eur Arch Otorhino-
laryngol 2013;270:2891–9.
[19] Salib RJ, Talpallikar S, Uppal S, Nair SB. A prospective randomised
single-blinded clinical trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of
the nasal douching products SterimarTM and Sinus RinseTM following
functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 2013;38:297–305,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.12132.
[20] Ma W, Korngreen A, Uzlaner N, Priel Z, Silberberg SD. Extracellular sodium
regulates airway ciliary motility by inhibiting a P2X receptor. Nature
1999;400:894–7.
[21] Ludwig P, Petrich K, Schewe T, Diezel W. Inhibition of eicosanoid formation in
human polymorphonuclear leukocytes by high concentrations of magnesium
ions. Biol Chem 1995;376:739–44.
[22] Larbi KY, Gomperts BD. Complex pattern of inhibition by Mg2+ of exocytosis
from permeabilised eosinophils. Cell Calcium 1997;21:213–9.
[23] Schumacher S, Roth I, Stahl J, Bäumer W, Kietzmann M. Biodegradation of
metallic magnesium elicits an inflammatory response in primary nasal epithe-
lial cells. Acta Biomater 2014;10:996–1004.
[24] Tesfaigzi Y. Roles of apoptosis in airway epithelia. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol
2006;34:537–47.
[25] Schmid A, Salathe M. Ciliary beat co-ordination by calcium. Biol Cell
2011;103:159–69.
[26] Trinh NTN, Privé A, Maillé E, Noël J, Brochiero E. EGF and K+ channel activity
control normal and cystic fibrosis bronchial epithelia repair. Am J Physiol Lung
Cell Mol Physiol 2008;295:L866–80.
[27] Buchanan PJ, McNally P, Harvey BJ, Urbach V. Lipoxin A4 -mediated KATP potas-
sium channel activation results in cystic fibrosis airway epithelial repair. Am J
Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2013;305:L193–201.
[28] Chen EYT, Yang N, Quinton PM, Chin W-C. A new role for bicarbonate in mucus
formation. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2010;299:L542–9.
285
[29] Van de Donk HJ, Zuidema J, Merkus FW. The influence of the pH and osmotic
pressure upon tracheal ciliary beat frequency as determined with a new photo-
electric registration device. Rhinology 1980;18:93–104.
[30] Luk CK, Dulfano MJ. Effect of pH, viscosity and ionic-strength changes
on ciliary beating frequency of human bronchial explants. Clin Sci (Lond)
1983;64:449–51.
[31] Zsembery A, Boyce AT, Liang L, Peti-Peterdi J, Bell PD, Schwiebert EM. Sustained
calcium entry through P2X nucleotide receptor channels in human airway
epithelial cells. J Biol Chem 2003;278:13398–408.
[32] England RJ, Anthony R, Homer JJ, Martin-Hirsch DP. Nasal pH and saccha-
rin clearance are unrelated in the physiologically normal nose. Rhinology
2000;38:66–7.
[33] Chusakul S, Warathanasin S, Suksangpanya N, Phannaso C, Ruxrungtham
S, Snidvongs K, et al. Comparison of buffered and nonbuffered nasal
saline irrigations in treating allergic rhinitis. Laryngoscope 2013;123:53–6,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lary.23617.
[34] Boek WM, Keleş N, Graamans K, Huizing EH. Physiologic and hypertonic saline
solutions impair ciliary activity in vitro. Laryngoscope 1999;109:396–9.
[35] Dwyer TM, Farley JM. Mucus glycoconjugate secretion in cool and hypertonic
solutions. Am J Physiol 1997;272:L1121–5.
[36] Högman M, Mörk AC, Roomans GM. Hypertonic saline increases tight junction
permeability in airway epithelium. Eur Respir J 2002;20:1444–8.
[37] Greiff L, Andersson M, Wollmer P, Persson CGA. Hypertonic saline increases
secretory and exudative responsiveness of human nasal airway in vivo. Eur
Respir J 2003;21:308–12.
[38] Talbot AR, Herr TM, Parsons DS. Mucociliary clearance and buffered hypertonic
saline solution. Laryngoscope 1997;107:500–3.
[39] Homer JJ, Dowley AC, Condon L, El-Jassar P, Sood S. The effect of hypertonicity
on nasal mucociliary clearance. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2000;25:558–60.
[40] Traissac L, Bordenave L, Bareille R, Bacquey C, Courtes C. Étude in vitro de
l’action des dérivés de l’eau de mer sur la muqueuse respiratoire. Rev Off Soc
Fr ORL 1995;32:43–9.
[41] Nikolaidis E, Eleftheriadou A, Yiotakis I, Lazaris AC, Agrogianis G, Ferekidou E,
et al. Influence of intranasal sterile isotonic sea water applications on xylometa-
zoline administration: an experimental study in pigs. Auris Nasus Larynx
2010;37:71–6.
[42] Garavello W, Romagnoli M, Sordo L, Gaini RM, Di Berardino C, Angrisano A.
Hypersaline nasal irrigation in children with symptomatic seasonal allergic
rhinitis: a randomized study. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2003;14:140–3.
[43] Li H, Sha Q, Zuo K, Jiang H, Cheng L, Shi J, et al. Nasal saline irrigation facilitates
control of allergic rhinitis by topical steroid in children. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol
Relat Spec 2009;71:50–5.
[44] Rabago D, Barrett B, Marchand L, Maberry R, Mundt M. Qualitative aspects of
nasal irrigation use by patients with chronic sinus disease in a multimethod
study. Ann Fam Med 2006;4:295–301.
[45] Jeffe JS, Bhushan B, Schroeder Jr JW. Nasal saline irrigation in children: a study
of compliance and tolerance. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2012;76:409–13.
[46] Strnad P, Skoupá J, Cimrova H, Horník P. Efficacy of hypertonic seawater saline
in the treatment of persistent rhinitis/rhinosinusitis. In: American Society of
Pediatric Otolaryngology 2007 Annual Meeting. 2007.
[47] Friedman M, Hamilton C, Samuelson CG, Maley A, Wilson MN, Venkatesan
TK, et al. Dead Sea salt irrigations vs saline irrigations with nasal steroids for
symptomatic treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: a randomized, prospective
double-blind study. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2012;2:252–7.
[48] Slapak I, Skoupá J, Strnad P, Horník P. Efficacy of isotonic nasal wash (seawater)
in the treatment and prevention of rhinitis in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head
Neck Surg 2008;134:67–74.
[49] Wang Y-H, Yang C-P, Ku M-S, Sun H-L, Lue K-H. Efficacy of nasal irrigation
in the treatment of acute sinusitis in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol
2009;73:1696–701.
[50] Ünal M, Görür K, Özcan C. Ringer-lactate solution versus isotonic saline
solution on mucociliary function after nasal septal surgery. J Laryngol Otol
2001;115:796–7.
[51] Pigret D, Jankowski R. Management of post-ethmoidectomy crust formation:
randomized single-blind clinical trial comparing pressurized seawater versus
antiseptic/mucolytic saline. Rhinology 1996;34:38–40.
[52] Keerl R, Weber R, Müller C, Schick B. Effectiveness and tolerance of
nasal irrigation following paranasal sinus surgery. Laryngorhinootologie
1997;76:137–41.
[53] Pinto JM, Elwany S, Baroody FM, Naclerio RM. Effects of saline sprays on symp-
toms after endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol 2006;20:191–6.
[54] Hofmann T, Gugatschga M, Koidl B, Wolf G. Influence of preservatives and topi-
cal steroids on ciliary beat frequency in vitro. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
2004;130:440–5.
[55] Mickenhagen A, Siefer O, Neugebauer P, Stennert E. The influence of different
alpha-sympathomimetic drugs and benzalkoniumchlorid on the ciliary beat
frequency of in vitro cultured human nasal mucosa cells. Laryngorhinootologie
2008;87:30–8.