Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5226_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Extrinsic Factors
- •Intrinsic Factors
- •References
- •Indications
- •Surgical Technique
- •References
- •Background
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Other Operative Points
- •Surgical Indications
- •Surgical Technique (Video 3.1)
- •Reported Outcomes
- •Potential Complications
- •References
- •4: Endoscopic Denker’s Approach
- •Background
- •Surgical Technique
- •Reported Outcomes
- •References
- •Background
- •Reported Outcomes
- •References
- •Background
- •Surgical Indications
- •Surgical Technique
- •Reported Outcomes
- •References
- •Background
- •Technical Factors
- •Patient Factors
- •Anatomic Factors
- •Imaging Review
- •Surgical Technique
- •Draf IIA
- •Draf IIB (Video 7.2)
- •References
- •Background
- •Surgical Techniques
- •Standard Frontal Sinus Approaches
- •Modified Hemi-Lothrop Procedure (Eloy IIC)
- •Modified Mini-Lothrop Procedure (Eloy IID)
- •Modified Subtotal-Lothrop Procedure (Eloy IIE)
- •Modified Central-Lothrop Procedure (Eloy IIF)
- •References
- •Background
- •Surgical Techniques
- •Modifications
- •Reported Outcomes
- •References
- •Background
- •Surgical Technique
- •References
- •11: The Outside-in Draf III Procedure
- •Background
- •Surgical Technique
- •Surgical Steps
- •Post-Operative Management
- •Reported Outcomes
- •Patient Reporting Outcome Measures
- •Operative Time
- •Complications
- •References
- •12: Balloon Sinuplasty
- •Background
- •Reported Outcomes
- •Surgical Technique
- •Local Anesthesia Protocol
- •Procedure: Maxillary Sinus Balloon Dilation
- •Procedure: Frontal Sinus Balloon Dilation
- •Procedure: Sphenoid Sinus Balloon Dilation
- •References
- •Background
- •Surgical Technique
- •Nasal Polypectomy
- •Maxillary Sinus Disease
- •Ethmoid Sinus Disease
- •Frontal Sinus Disease
- •Sphenoid Sinus Disease
- •Mucocele Drainage
- •Balloon Sinus Dilation
- •Outcomes
- •References
- •Background
- •Patient Selection
- •Room Setup/Equipment
- •Navigation Systems
- •Monitoring
- •Patient Comfort
- •Staff Training
- •Reported Outcomes/Evolving Practice Patterns
- •References
- •16: Steroid Eluting-Implants
- •Background
- •Indications
- •Background
- •Surgical Technique (Video 15.1)
- •In-Office Polypectomy
- •Reported Outcomes
- •References
- •Surgical Technique
- •Reported Outcomes
- •References
- •Background
- •Cryotherapy
- •Radiofrequency Ablation
- •Surgical Technique
- •Reported Outcomes
- •References
- •18: Inferior Turbinate Reduction
- •Background
- •Extramucosal Surgical Techniques
- •Complete Turbinectomy
- •Laser Cautery
- •Electrocautery
- •Cryotherapy
- •Turbinate Lateralization
- •Submucosal Techniques
- •Microdebrider Turbinoplasty (Video 18.1)
- •Coblation (Video 18.2)
- •Radiofrequency Ablation (Video 18.3)
- •Ultrasound Turbinoplasty
- •References
- •Background
- •Surgical Technique
- •Bioabsorbable Nasal Sidewall Implant (LATERA)
- •Patient Selection
- •Local Anesthesia
- •Surgical Technique
- •Patient Selection
- •Local Anesthesia
- •Surgical Technique
- •References
- •Background
- •Topical Antibacterial Therapy
- •Topical Antifungal Therapy
- •Senior Author’s Practice
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •21: Intravenous Antimicrobial Therapy
- •Background
- •When Is Recalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis Infectious?
- •Anatomically Complicated Infections
- •Empiric Oral Antimicrobial Therapy
- •Oral Versus Intravenous Therapy
- •Staphylococcus
- •Streptococcus
- •Enterococcus
- •Enterobacterales
- •Pseudomonas
- •Other Gram-Negative Organisms
- •Anaerobes
- •Multidrug-Resistant Organisms
- •Antimicrobial Stewardship
- •References
- •Background
- •Chronic Rhinosinusitis
- •Glucocorticoids
- •Intranasal Steroid Irrigations
- •Rationale
- •Evidence
- •The Exhalation Delivery System
- •Rationale
- •Evidence
- •Steroid-Eluting Sinus Stents
- •Rationale
- •Rationale
- •Glucocorticoid Insensitivity
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Background
- •Pathophysiology
- •Diagnosis
- •Aspirin Challenge
- •Aspirin Challenge Procedure
- •Aspirin Desensitization
- •Preparation
- •Logistics
- •Monitoring
- •Protocols
- •Aspirin-Induced Reactions
- •Maintenance Aspirin Therapy after Desensitization
- •Silent Desensitization
- •References
- •Background
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Background
- •Patient Selection
- •Dupilumab
- •Omalizumab
- •Mepolizumab
- •Summary
- •References
- •Background
- •Povidone-Iodine (PVP-I) Rinses
- •Manuka Honey Rinses
- •Colloidal Silver
- •Topical Antibiotics
- •Photodynamic Therapy
- •Phage Therapy
- •Sinonasal Microbiota Transfer (SNMT)
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Index

26 Novel Therapies forRecalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis
327
Sinonasal Microbiota Transfer (SNMT)
Microbial (bacterial, fungal, and viral) disruptions can cause or contribute to sinus
inammation [53–57]. Specic members of the sinonasal microbiome, like
S. aureus, can drive maladaptive type 2 inammation in the sinus mucosa via direct
superantigen stimulation of T lymphocytes [58], intracellular infection of immune
cells [59, 60], superantigen-specic IgE production [61], epithelial barrier disruptions [62], and biolm formation [60, 63, 64]. When comparing the microbiome
composition (i.e., the genetic material derived from the microbiota of a specic site)
of CRS patients to healthy controls, diseased individuals have a lower microbiome
diversity compared to healthy subjects [65–68]. Similarly, CRS patients experience
more epithelial barrier disruptions when their sinonasal microbiome is less diverse
[69]. Microbiota-altering therapies, like fecal microbiota transplantation, can successfully displace pathogens (80–94% cure rate for Clostridioides difcile) [58, 59]
and effectively treat inammatory diseases like ulcerative colitis [70] and atopic
dermatitis [71]. We believe that a similar treatment strategy can treat rCRS patients
who primarily fail due to biolm formation and colonization by resistant bacterial
strains.
Currently, there are three RCTs registered in clinicaltrials.gov that investigate the
use of a sinonasal microbiota transfer (SNMT) for treatment of rCRS [72–74]. Two
trials evaluate the transfer of a nasal wash from a healthy donor into the diseased
sinus cavity, while one trial investigates transferring endoscopically suctioned
mucus from a healthy donor into the diseased sinus. One of the trials appears as
completed, but the authors have yet to publish any results [73]. Pilot data from our
center shows that an endoscopically guided SNMT can improve SNOT-22 and
Lund-Kennedy scores at 45days, with two patients showing sustained improvement
after 6 months (case-series manuscript in preparation). We are currently in the
recruitment phase of a double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT evaluating SNMT vs
placebo (i.e., sham SNMT) for the treatment of rCRS [74]. Results from these trials
will answer whether SNMT has any place in the treatment of rCRS.
Conclusion
It is increasingly likely that the treatment strategies for rCRS will continue to evolve
in the years to come. Multiple questions remain unanswered regarding experimental
treatments for rCRS. Specically, there is an urgent need for high-quality RCT
investigating the efcacy of these therapies. Nonetheless, the available evidence for
some of these treatments is very promising and will only improve with time. We
strongly believe that therapies that target specic members of the sinonasal microbiome (i.e., phages) or the whole sinonasal community (i.e., SNMT) have the potential to change the way we envision rCRS treatment (Table26.1).

328
J. C. Hernaiz-Leonardo et al.
Outcomes
Median decrease in MLK scores of 1.50 point (95% CI
1.00–1.50) at 7weeks.
38% improved posttreatment SNOT-22 scores by 9 or
more points. No adverse events reported
Both groups improved their SNOT-22 and MLK scores at
3months without any signicant differences between
them.
No difference in the frequency of culture negativity. No
adverse events reported.
Culture negativity higher in the mupirocin group (14/20,
70%) compared to the PVP-I (9/21, 43%) and saline
(9/19, 47%) groups.
MLK and SNOT-22 improvement in all groups, without
signicant differences. No adverse events reported.
No difference seen in SNOT-22 or MLK scores, but
signicant period effect was seen between the two
treatment periods.
Severe nasal obstruction and congestion in one patient
using CS.
2/11 patients on the CS arm had negative swabs compared
to 1/11in the control group
SNOT-22 and MLK scores tended to improve in the CS
arm without being statistically signicant.
0.08% PVP-I every other day for
7weeks+1mg of budesonide in
240ml of saline OD
2.4mL of 10% PVP-I in 240ml
of 0.9% saline or saline alone,
twice a day for 3months
postoperatively
1% povidone-iodine (PI) vs
0.05% mupirocin rinses vs saline
control sinus irrigations, twice
daily for 30days. Antibiotics
Patients with CRSwNP or
CRSsNP with persistent
symptoms despite adequate
therapy and at least 1 point in
the discharge MLK subdomain
Patients undergoing primary
FESS
Postsurgical patients with
ongoing signs and symptoms of
CRS with a positive culture for
Staphylococcus aureus
295562
Study design N Sample characteristics Intervention and comparison
cohort [27]
Single-blind
RCT [28]
Single-blind
RCT [26]
Treatment
PVP-I rinses Prospective
Table 26.1 Summary of studies that evaluate alternative treatment strategies for recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis
indicated as needed by the
treating surgeon
10ppm of CS twice daily or
saline for 6weeks before
crossing over to the other arm,
with a two-week washout
CS irrigations vs culture-directed
oral antibiotics+saline
CRSsNP patients who
remained symptomatic despite
oral antibiotics, oral or topical
steroids, shampoo irrigations,
or manuka honey irrigations
Postoperative patients with
22
22
Cross-over
RCT [38]
Open-label,
single-blind
RCT [39]
Colloidal
silver (CS)
irrigations
ongoing symptoms of CRS
despite at least one round or
oral antibiotics and a positive
bacterial culture

26 Novel Therapies forRecalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis
No signicant differences in SNOT-22, MLK, UPSIT, or
culture negativity. No adverse events observed.
No signicant differences in SNOT-22, MLK, or culture
negativity.
Those receiving no oral antibiotics and MH rinses reduced
their bacterial load signicantly.
No difference on CT, SNOT-22, or endoscopy scores.
LK scores improved more in the mupirocin group −4.0
(95% CI -7.0–1.3) compared to Augmentin −3.0
(−1.0–4.0).
SNOT-22 and VAS scores improved from baseline but
were not signicantly different. Culture negativity was
better in the mupirocin group.
Relative risk for residual infection 0.13 (random effects
95% CI 0.06–0.26).
(continued)
Residual Staphylococcus aureus infection after 1month
0.08 (random effects 95% CI: 0.04–0.16).
Low-quality studies precluded any type of
recommendation.
329
16.5% MH augmented with
1.3mg/mL MGO vs saline
rinses, both for 14days and with
culture-directed oral antibiotics
10% MH vs saline rinses for
30days with background oral
and topical steroids+culture-
directed antibiotics
Thyme/honey nasal spray 2 puffs
Postoperative patients with
ongoing symptoms of CRS
despite at least one round or
oral antibiotics and a positive
bacterial culture
Postoperative CRS patients
with purulent discharge on
endoscopy
Postoperative CRS patients
254253
Single-blind
RCT [32]
Single-blind
RCT [33]
Double-blind
RCT [34]
Manuka
honey (MH)
rinses
per nostril vs saline sprays.
Everyone received oral
antibiotics after surgery
125mg of mupirocin in 200ml
of saline+placebo tablets for
28days vs 200ml of
saline+Augmentin for 28days
Mupirocin ranged from 0.05 to
2% once or twice a day. Included
FESS, ongoing symptoms, and
positive culture for
Staphylococcus aureus
Included two RCTs, two
prospective studies, and two
25 CRSwNP with previous full
Double-blind
RCT [40]
Systematic
review and
meta-analysis
[41]
Mupirocin
rinses
the previous study by Jervis etal.
[40]
retrospective studies
No studies met inclusion
criteria
Cochrane
systematic
review [75]

330
mUV/IVS group improved NOSE, TNSS, and PNIF at 6,
12, and 26weeks and reduced polyp size at 16 and
26weeks,
Mometasone group did not improve, but no comparative
analysis was made between groups.
No difference seen in symptom severity, RDSI, olfaction,
rhinomanometry, or nitric oxide.
Carbon monoxide production increased in mUV/VIS
Outcomes
group.
Phage therapy was well tolerated in all cohorts, with no
serious adverse events reported.
Preliminary efcacy data showed improvement with
phage therapy, with 2/9 patients having complete
irradiation of their infection.
J. C. Hernaiz-Leonardo et al.
No published results.
Mometasone furoate BID vs
mometasone furoate
BID+mUV/VIS phototherapy 3
times per week for 12weeks
CRSwNP with grade II–III
nasal polyps with previous
FESS and long-standing topical
steroid treatment
76
50
Open-label
RCT [45]
Double-blind
Study design N Sample characteristics Intervention and comparison
RCT [46]
(continued)
Antimicrobial
photodynamic
Treatment
Table 26.1
therapy
phage-forming units
8
mUV/VIS vs placebo (low-
intensity visible light)
3×10
CRS criteria met
9 Postoperative CRS patients
Phase I pilot
Bacteriophage
phage-forming units
phage-forming units
8
9
(PFU) twice a day for 7days vs
3×10
(PFU) twice a day for 17days vs
3×10
(PFU) twice a day for seven days
transfer of sinus washes from
healthy donors to placebo. One
trial [74] compares the transfer
of endoscopically suctioned
mucus from healthy donors
with positive cultures for
Staphylococcus aureus
sensitive to the AB-SA01 phage
cocktail
– All trial focus on rCRS Two trials [72, 73] compare the
open-label trial
[52]
therapy
Three RCT
registered in
clinicaltrials.
gov [72–74]
Sinonasal
microbiota
transfer
against placebo
AFRS allergic fungal rhinosinusitis, CRSsNP chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, CRSwNP chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, FESS functional endo-
scopic sinus surgery, MLK modied Lund-Kennedy endoscopic score, PNIF peak nasal inspiratory ow, PVP-I povidone-iodine, rCRS recalcitrant chronic rhinosinus-
itis, UPSIT University of Pennsylvania Smell Identication Test, TNSS total nasal symptom score

26 Novel Therapies forRecalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis
331
References
1. Bachert C, Han JK, Desrosiers M, Hellings PW, Amin N, Lee SE, etal. Efcacy and safety
of dupilumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (LIBERTY NP
SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52): results from two multicentre, randomised, doubleblind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2019;394(10209):1638–50.
2. Gevaert P, Omachi TA, Corren J, Mullol J, Han J, Lee SE, etal. Efcacy and safety of
omalizumab in nasal polyposis: 2 randomized phase 3 trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020
Sep;146(3):595–605.
3. Agache I, Beltran J, Akdis C, Akdis M, Canelo-Aybar C, Canonica GW, etal. Efcacy and
safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and
reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI guidelines—
recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma. Allergy. 2020;75(5):1023–42.
4. Bavaro N, Gakpo D, Mittal A, Bensko J, Laidlaw TM, Buchheit KM.Efcacy of dupilumab
in patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease and previous inadequate response to
anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα in a real-world setting. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9:2910.
5. Callewaert C, Nakatsuji T, Knight R, Kosciolek T, Vrbanac A, Kotol P, etal. IL-4Rα blockade
by Dupilumab decreases Staphylococcus aureus colonization and increases microbial diversity
in atopic dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol. 2020;140(1):191–202.e7.
6. Fujieda S, Matsune S, Takeno S, Asako M, Takeuchi M, Fujita H, etal. The effect of Dupilumab
on intractable chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in Japan. Laryngoscope. 2020;
7. Sano. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled Parallel Group Study assessing the
efcacy and safety of Dupilumab in patients with Allergic Fungal Rhinosinusitis (AFRS)
[Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2022 May [cited 2022 Jul 10]. (In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet].
Bethesda: U.S.National Library of Medicine. 2000 -). Report No.: NCT04684524. Available
from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04684524
8. Johns Hopkins University. Efcacy of Dupilumab for Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis
Without Nasal Polyps (CRSsNP): a Randomized Double Blind Placebo Controlled Phase
II Study [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2021 Oct [cited 2022 Jul 10]. (In: ClinicalTrials.gov
[Internet]. Bethesda: U.S.National Library of Medicine. 2000 -). Report No.: NCT04362501.
Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04362501
9. Miyake MM, Bleier BS. Future topical medications in chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum
Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(S1):S32–46.
10. Carlton DA, Beahm DD, Chiu AG. Topical antibiotic therapy in chronic rhinosinusitis: an
update. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(S1):S27–31.
11. Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Hopkins C, Hellings PW, Kern R, Reitsma S, etal. European Position
Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020. Rhinology. 2020;58(Suppl S29):1–464.
12. Singhal D, Psaltis AJ, Foreman A, Wormald PJ. The impact of biolms on outcomes after
endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2010;24(3):169–74.
13. Zhao YC. Biolm and osteitis in refractory chronic rhinosinusitis. Otolaryngol Clin
NA. 2017;50(1):49–60.
14. Foreman A, Psaltis AJ, Tan LW, Wormald PJ.Characterization of bacterial and fungal biolms
in chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2009;23(6):556–61.
15. Wood AJ, Fraser J, Swift S, Amirapu S, Douglas RG.Are biolms associated with an inammatory response in chronic rhinosinusitis? Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2011;1(5):335–9.
16. Panchatcharam BS, Cooksley CM, Ramezanpour M, Vediappan RS, Bassiouni A, Wormald
PJ, etal. Staphylococcus aureus biolm exoproteins are cytotoxic to human nasal epithelial
barrier in chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;10(7):871–83.
17. Martens K, Seys SF, Alpizar YA, Schrijvers R, Bullens DMA, Breynaert C, etal. Staphylococcus
aureus enterotoxin B disrupts nasal epithelial barrier integrity. Clin Exp Allergy J Br Soc
Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;51(1):87–98.
18. Ou J, Wang J, Xu Y, Zhang Tao Z, Gang Kong Y, Ming Chen S, etal. Staphylococcus aureus
superantigens are associated with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a meta-analysis.
Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Off J Eur Fed Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Soc EUFOS Afl Ger Soc
Oto-Rhino-Laryngol- Head Neck Surg. 2014;271(10):2729–36.

332
19. Desrosiers M, Myntti M, James G.Methods for removing bacterial biolms: invitro study
using clinical chronic rhinosinusitis specimens. Am J Rhinol. 2007;21(5):527–32.
20. Oduwole KO, Glynn AA, Molony DC, Murray D, Rowe S, Holland LM, etal. Anti-biolm
activity of sub-inhibitory povidone-iodine concentrations against Staphylococcus epidermidis
and Staphylococcus aureus. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(9):1252–6.
21. Ngaage LM, Elegbede A, Brao K, Chopra K, Gowda AU, Nam AJ, etal. The efcacy of breast
implant irrigant solutions: a comparative analysis using an invitro model. Plast Reconstr Surg.
2020 Aug;146(2):301–8.
22. Jeronimo LP, Choi MR, Yeon SH, Park SK, Yoon YH, Choi SH, et al. Effects of povidone-iodine composite on the elimination of bacterial biolm. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol.
2020;10(7):884–92.
23. Eggers M, Eickmann M, Zorn J. Rapid and effective virucidal activity of povidone-iodine
products against Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and Modied
Vaccinia Virus Ankara (MVA). Infect Dis Ther. 2015;4(4):491–501.
24. Bidra AS, Pelletier JS, Westover JB, Frank S, Brown SM, Tessema B.Rapid in-vitro inactivation of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using povidoneiodine oral antiseptic rinse. J Prosthodont Off J Am Coll Prosthodont. 2020;29(6):529–33.
25. Rezapoor M, Nicholson T, Tabatabaee RM, Chen AF, Maltenfort MG, Parvizi J.Povidoneiodine-based solutions for decolonization of nasal Staphylococcus aureus: a randomized, prospective, Placebo-Controlled Study. J Arthroplasty. 2017 Sep;32(9):2815–9.
26. Lee VS, Pottinger PS, Davis GE.Tolerability and effectiveness of povidone-iodine or mupirocin versus saline sinus irrigations for chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020
Oct;41(5):102604.
27. Panchmatia R, Payandeh J, Al-Salman R, Kakande E, Habib AR, Mullings W, etal. The efcacy of diluted topical povidone-iodine rinses in the management of recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis: a prospective cohort study. Eur Arch Otorrinolaringol. 2019;276(12):3373–81.
28. Wu PH, Cheng PC, Chang CM, Lo WC, Cheng PW.Efcacy of povidone-iodine nasal irrigation solution after sinonasal surgery: a Randomized Controlled Study. Laryngoscope.
2022;132(6):1148–52.
29. Kwakman PHS, te Velde AA, de Boer L, Speijer D, Christina Vandenbroucke-Grauls MJ, Zaat
SAJ.How honey kills bacteria. FASEB J. 2010;24(7):2576–82.
30. Lu J, Turnbull L, Burke CM, Liu M, Carter DA, Schlothauer RC, etal. Manuka-type honeys
can eradicate biolms produced by Staphylococcus aureus strains with different biolm-forming abilities. PeerJ. 2014;2:e326.
31. Thamboo A, Thamboo A, Philpott C, Javer A, Clark A.Single-blind study of manuka honey
in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. J Otolaryngol—Head Neck Surg J Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Chir
Cervico-Faciale. 2011;40(3):238–43.
32. Ooi ML, Jothin A, Bennett C, Ooi EH, Vreugde S, Psaltis AJ, etal. Manuka honey sinus
irrigations in recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis: phase 1 randomized, single-blinded, placebocontrolled trial. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(12):1470–7.
33. Lee VS, Humphreys IM, Purcell PL, Davis GE.Manuka honey sinus irrigation for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis: a randomized controlled trial. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol.
2017;7(4):365–72.
34. Hashemian F, Baghbanian N, Majd Z, Rouini MR, Jahanshahi J, Hashemian F. The effect
of thyme honey nasal spray on chronic rhinosinusitis: a double-blind randomized controlled
clinical trial. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Off J Eur Fed Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Soc EUFOS
Afl Ger Soc Oto-Rhino-Laryngol—Head Neck Surg. 2015;272(6):1429–35.
35. Das CGA, Kumar VG, Dhas TS, Karthick V, Govindaraju K, Joselin JM, etal. Antibacterial
activity of silver nanoparticles (biosynthesis): a short review on recent advances. Biocatal
Agric Biotechnol. 2020;27:101593.
J. C. Hernaiz-Leonardo et al.

26 Novel Therapies forRecalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis
36. Feizi S, Cooksley CM, Bouras GS, Prestidge CA, Coenye T, Psaltis AJ, etal. Colloidal silver
combating pathogenic Pseudomonas aeruginosa and MRSA in chronic rhinosinusitis. Colloids
Surf B Biointerfaces. 2021;202:111675.
37. Feizi S, Cooksley CM, Nepal R, Psaltis AJ, Wormald PJ, Vreugde S. Silver nanoparticles
as a bioadjuvant of antibiotics against biolm-mediated infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in chronic rhinosinusitis patients.
Pathology (Phila). 2022;54(4):453–9.
38. Scott JR, Krishnan R, Rotenberg BW, Sowerby LJ.The effectiveness of topical colloidal silver
in recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis: a randomized crossover control trial. J Otolaryngol—
Head Neck Surg. 2017;46(1):64.
39. Ooi ML, Richter K, Bennett C, Macias-Valle L, Vreugde S, Psaltis AJ, etal. Topical colloidal silver for the treatment of recalcitrant chronic rhinosinusitis. Front Microbiol [Internet].
2018;9. [cited 2022 Jul 3]. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/
fmicb.2018.00720
40. Jervis-Bardy J, Boase S, Psaltis A, Foreman A, Wormald PJ.A randomized trial of mupirocin
sinonasal rinses versus saline in surgically recalcitrant staphylococcal chronic rhinosinusitis.
Laryngoscope. 2012;122(10):2148–53.
41. Kim JS, Kwon SH.Mupirocin in the treatment of staphylococcal infections in chronic rhinosinusitis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0167369.
42. Head K, Chong LY, Piromchai P, Hopkins C, Philpott C, Schilder AGM, etal. Systemic and
topical antibiotics for chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4:CD011994.
43. Koreck AI, Csoma Z, Bodai L, Ignacz F, Kenderessy AS, Kadocsa E, etal. Rhinophototherapy:
a new therapeutic tool for the management of allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
2005;115(3):541–7.
44. Kennedy R, Robertson L.Study on the effect of phototherapy for inhibition of symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;52(2):66.
45. Kiricsi Á, Tiszlavicz L, Rázga Z, Krasznai M, Vóna I, Hirschberg A, etal. Prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical study to evaluate the clinical efcacy and tolerability of long
term mixed ultraviolet and visible light phototherapy in eosinophil nasal polyps. J Photochem
Photobiol B. 2017;176:118–23.
46. Dulguerov N, Guinand N, Courvoisier D, Landis BN, Lacroix JS, Hauser C.Rhinophototherapy
in chronic rhinosinusitis: a double blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. Rhinol
J. 2017;55(2):106–12.
47. Harris F, Chateld LK, Phoenix DA.Phenothiazinium based photosensitisers--photodynamic
agents with a multiplicity of cellular targets and clinical applications. Curr Drug Targets
2005;6(5):615–627.
48. Biel MA, Sievert C, Usacheva M, Teichert M, Balcom J.Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy
treatment of chronic recurrent sinusitis biolms. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2011;1(5):329–34.
49. Biel MA, Jones JW, Pedigo L, Gibbs A, Loebel N.The effect of antimicrobial photodynamic
therapy on human ciliated respiratory mucosa. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(12):2628–31.
50. Sulakvelidze A, Alavidze Z, Morris JG.Bacteriophage therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother.
2001;45:11.
51. Harper DR, Parracho HMRT, Walker J, Sharp R, Hughes G, Werthén M, etal. Bacteriophages
and biolms. Antibiotics. 2014;3(3):270–84.
52. Ooi ML, Drilling AJ, Morales S, Fong S, Moraitis S, Macias-Valle L, etal. Safety and tolerability of bacteriophage therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis due to Staphylococcus aureus.
JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2019;145(8):723–9.
53. Okano M, Fujiwara T, Haruna T, Kariya S, Makihara S, Higaki T, etal. Role of fungal antigens
in eosinophilia-associated cellular responses in nasal polyps: a comparison with enterotoxin.
Clin Exp Allergy. 2011;41(2):171–8.
333

334
54. Hayes SM, Biggs TC, Goldie SP, Harries PG, Walls AF, Allan RN, et al. Staphylococcus
aureus internalization in mast cells in nasal polyps: characterization of interactions and potential mechanisms. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;145(1):147–59.
55. Ou J, Drilling A, Singhal D, Tan NCW, Wallis-Hill D, Vreugde S, etal. Association of intracellular Staphylococcus aureus with prognosis in chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy
Rhinol. 2016;6(8):792–9.
56. Murphy J, Ramezanpour M, Drilling A, Roscioli E, Psaltis AJ, Wormald PJ, etal. In vitro
characteristics of an airway barrier-disrupting factor secreted by Staphylococcus aureus. Int
Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(2):187–96.
57. Foreman A, Holtappels G, Psaltis AJ, Jervis-Bardy J, Field J, Wormald PJ, et al. Adaptive
immune responses in Staphylococcus aureus biolm–associated chronic rhinosinusitis.
Allergy. 2011;66(11):1449–56.
58. van Nood E, Vrieze A, Nieuwdrop M, Fuentes S, Zoetendal EG, De VWM, etal. Duodenal
infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difcile. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(5):407–15.
59. Gough E, Shaikh E, Manges A.Systematic review of intestinal microbiota transplantation
(fecal bacteriotherapy) for recurrent Clostridium difcile infection. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ
Infect Dis Soc Am. 2011;53(10):994–1002.
60. Fokkens W, Lund V, Hopkins C, Hellings P, Kern P, Reitsma S, etal. European Position Paper
on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020. Rhinology. 2020;58(Suppl S29):1–464.
61. Ott S, Waetzig G, Rehman A, Moltzau-Anderson J, Bharti R, Grasis JA, etal. Efcacy of sterile
fecal ltrate transfer for treating patients with Clostridium difcile infection. Gastroenterology.
2017;152(4):799–811.e7.
62. Lux CA, Wagner Mackenzie B, Johnston J, Zoing M, Biswas K, Taylor MW, etal. Antibiotic
treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis: prescription patterns and associations with patient outcome and the sinus microbiota. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:3251.
63. Baxter M, Colville A.Adverse events in faecal microbiota transplant: a review of the literature.
J Hosp Infect. W.B.Saunders Ltd. 2016;92:117–27.
64. Osman M.Safety and efcacy of fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium
difcile infection from an international public stool bank: results from a 2,050 patient multicenter cohort. Idsa. 2016;
65. Abreu NA, Nagalingam NA, Song Y, Roediger FC, Pletcher SD, Goldberg AN, etal. Sinus
microbiome diversity depletion and Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum enrichment mediates rhinosinusitis. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(151):151ra124.
66. Cope EK, Goldberg AN, Pletcher SD, Lynch SV.Compositionally and functionally distinct
sinus microbiota in chronic rhinosinusitis patients have immunological and clinically divergent consequences. Microbiome. 2017;5(1):1–16.
67. Wagner Mackenzie B, Waite DW, Hoggard M, Douglas RG, Taylor MW, Biswas K.Bacterial
community collapse: a meta-analysis of the sinonasal microbiota in chronic rhinosinusitis.
Environ Microbiol. 2017;19(1):381–92.
68. Gan W, Yang F, Tang Y, Zhou D, Qing D, Hu J, etal. The difference in nasal bacterial microbiome diversity between chronic rhinosinusitis patients with polyps and a control population.
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(6):582–92.
69. Kuhar HN, Tajudeen BA, Mahdavinia M, Heilingoetter A, Ganti A, Gattuso P, etal. Relative
abundance of nasal microbiota in chronic rhinosinusitis by structured histopathology. Int
Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018;8(12):1430–7.
70. Allegretti JR, Kao D, Sitko J, Fischer M, Kassam Z.Early antibiotic use after fecal microbiota
transplantation increases risk of treatment failure. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(1):134–5.
71. Luu K, Sutherland J, Crump T, Liu G, Janjua A. The impact of chronic airway disease on
symptom severity and global suffering in Canadian rhinosinusitis patients. J Otolaryngol—
Head Neck Surg J Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Chir Cervico-Faciale. 2018;47(1):40.
J. C. Hernaiz-Leonardo et al.

26 Novel Therapies forRecalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis
72. The University of Queensland. Phase-II Randomized Control Trial of Nasal Microbiota
Transplant Therapy in Chronic Rhinosinusitis Without Nasal Polyps (CRSsNP) [Internet].
clinicaltrials.gov; 2022 [cited 2022 Jun 30]. (In: ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda:
U.S.National Library of Medicine. 2000 -). Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/
NCT05400616
73. Region Skane. Sinonasal Microbiome Transplant as a Therapy for Chronic Rhinosinusitis
Without Nasal Polyps (CRSsNP) [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2019 [cited 2022 Jun 30]. (In:
ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. Bethesda: U.S.National Library of Medicine. 2000 -). Available
from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03122795
74. Javer A. SinoNasal Microbiota Transfer (SNMT) to Treat Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A
Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial [Internet]. clinicaltrials.gov; 2022 Jul
[cited 2022 Jul 12]. Report No.: NCT05454072. Available from:. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/
show/NCT05454072
75. Head K, Chong L, Piromchai P, Hopkins C, Philpott C, Schilder A, etal. Systemic and topical
antibiotics for chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016:4.
335

Index
A
Recalcitrant Chronic Rhinosinusitis,
B
337
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
