Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Sinusitis / November 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

pulsatile vs constant flow / waterpik vs neti pot

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
loxaluck - 19 Sep 2006 15:12 GMT
hello:

through this very valuable group, i was introduced to the hydropulse,
which i purchased and used for some time.  The real benefit of this device
seemed to be, i believe, the pulsing action, said to facilitate the
movement of cilia.

recent postings have shown an emphasis towards new irrigating techniques
involving a constant flow from a waterpik or some other advice.

if constant flow is adequate or beneficial, why use a waterpik at all?
isnt the neti pot as good?  although there is no real force behind the
stream of water, there is gravity since, with the neti pot your head is
tilted and you are pouring down.  i have felt that the neti pot can
actually penetrate further than the hydropulse which is shooting water up.


the waterpik, like the hydropulse, is still subject to the dirty tubing.
not so the neti.  and the expense is greater.  

when i first bought the hydropulse i was excited that i had found the
device that would make me normal again.  i think that i will wait a bit to
hear if any group members are happy with the constant flow of the standard
waterpik or if any find the devices that are sold through the previously
posted websites of value.
Susan - 19 Sep 2006 15:17 GMT
> hello:
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> waterpik or if any find the devices that are sold through the previously
> posted websites of value.

I haven't tried a neti pot yet, but that will be my next purchase.  If
ti works for me, it sure would make travel and sterilization both easier.

I'm still interested in the additional pressure from the waterpik and
other irrigators we've viewed here these past few days.  We're on our
own, testing and reporting, since there is absolutely no research
comparing results of various methods.

Susan
judy.n - 21 Sep 2006 12:39 GMT
Recently there was an article in Family Practice Journal about the
benefits of irrigating. They used a neti pot. The comments afterward
were Dr. Davidson who strongly advocated pulsatile irrigation, and an
ENT from Pittsburgh who stated that she supports irrigation, has her
patients use hypertonic saline and the method didin't matter as much to
her as just the fact that patients were irrigating.
 As Susan wrote, there has been one study, but it didn't do a head to
head comparison of pulsatile vs. neti: I believe it was the neilmed vs.
bulb syringe vs. water pik--done at Kaiser Permanente.
 I think the most important thing is that you irrigate, keep the
device clean and find what works for you--convenience and easy cleaning
are important. Whether the pulsatile nature of the Grossan device truly
re-activates cilia is open to debate--as a previous poster stated very
well.
 Clearly irrigation helps people "whose noses don't self cleanse" at
the ENT from Pitt stated, so what ever you use, if it works for you,
it's a benefit.
 As Susan said, no method has been clearly proven better--and again by
what endpoints? Number of infections? Post nasal drip? Congestion? The
Family Medicine Article measured quality of life.
 Just irrigating is clearly beneficial, how you do it and what you put
in the solution is widely open to debate.
Judy
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
> Susan
ilaboo - 29 Oct 2006 00:36 GMT
i agree--seems that an endoscopic study is indicated--image the nasal
mucosa --irrigate one nostral with pulse and other continuous--once again my
gutr reaction is that it is not important--there are however studies on
removing bacteria from skin ulcers and a certain pressure is needed

iyoui kmow thre nasal mucosa is in essence skin so what difference does it
make to was your hands with continuous water vers pulsating?

princile is to get area clea

imho

peter

> Recently there was an article in Family Practice Journal about the
> benefits of irrigating. They used a neti pot. The comments afterward
[quoted text clipped - 62 lines]
>>
>> Susan
Murray Grossan - 29 Oct 2006 20:01 GMT
On 10/28/06 3:36 PM, in article APR0h.2828$dx4.2042@trndny05, "ilaboo"
<rlener@verizon.net> wrote:

> iyoui kmow thre nasal mucosa is in essence skin so what difference does it
> make to was your hands with continuous water vers pulsating?

No way is nasal mucosa like skin. Just a few of the differences
Nasal contains lysozyme and mast cells and other defences against disease
Nasal mucosa contains major allergic defences. It contains the ICAM 1 where
the cold virus enters
It contains mechanisms for warming and moistening the air that goes to the
lungs.
It contains the cilia that moves the bacteria/toxins out of the nose so they
don't enter your body.

The reason you wash your hands to prevent illness is that from the hands you
touch your nose and then the virus/bacteria enters. They don't enter through
the skin of your hands.
ilaboo - 31 Oct 2006 21:15 GMT
i agree--jsut trying to simplify things--keep wondering wat is the embrology
of the nasal cavity?--take care

peter

> On 10/28/06 3:36 PM, in article APR0h.2828$dx4.2042@trndny05, "ilaboo"
> <rlener@verizon.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> through
> the skin of your hands.
MS - 28 Oct 2006 21:50 GMT
> I haven't tried a neti pot yet, but that will be my next purchase.  If ti
> works for me, it sure would make travel and sterilization both easier.

I have even seen plastic foldable neti pots available these days, even in
local drug stores (sinu-cleanse?). That would certainly be the easiest type
to carry while traveling, rather than a heavy ceramic pot. Of course, the
various squeeze bottles such as Neilmed and others (Ayr now makes one too),
with pre-measured dry solution packets, are also handy for traveling.

Something I sometimes use for a quick less-thorough irrigation is
non-preserved saline solution for contact lenses. (I guess one could use the
preserved kind, but I find the preservatives irritating.) I squirt that
straight into the nose from the bottle, no mixing necessary, so it's quick
and sterile. Non-preserved saline for contacts is harder to find these days,
than it was a couple years ago, but it still can be found, in two forms--1)
Twelve ounce aerosol cans. The cheapest by far is at Wal-Mart, with its own
Equate brand, now $2.34 for a 12 oz bottle. 2) A box of three 4 oz squeeze
bottles. (A bottle should be used within one week after opening it, due to
not having preservatives.) Those smaller squeeze bottles can be handy to
carry in pocket or purse
Susan - 29 Oct 2006 02:11 GMT
>>I haven't tried a neti pot yet, but that will be my next purchase.  If ti
>>works for me, it sure would make travel and sterilization both easier.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> various squeeze bottles such as Neilmed and others (Ayr now makes one too),
> with pre-measured dry solution packets, are also handy for traveling.

Not IMO.  I find NeilMed not much different than doing nothing.

Susan
MS - 06 Nov 2006 07:37 GMT
> Not IMO.  I find NeilMed not much different than doing nothing.
>
> Susan

That's interesting. I find all irrigation pretty similar.

One thing I do with the Neilmed bottle--I take out the tube in the middle.
Without the tube, of course, one cannot keep the bottle in an upright
position, but has to turn the head to the side, and have the bottle upside
down above it. (Like with a neti pot.) I know there have been
recommendations here against such positions, but I find more stuff gets
cleaned out that way. With Waterpik irrigation, I also turn my head all
different ways while irrigatiing.
ilaboo - 29 Oct 2006 00:31 GMT
it would seem to me the producers of water pick or other irrigators of the
nasal mucosa should have done some studies
the nasal cavity is so full of hills and valleys that i doubt that pulsating
or continuous flow is making a difference--i suspect irrigation using normal
or slightly hypertonic saline regardless of technioque works--good idea to
keep all tubing etc as clean as possible --disinfect with 70% alchole and
dry ( if contrtindicated by manufacturer.
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Susan
Murray Grossan - 29 Oct 2006 02:04 GMT
On 10/28/06 4:31 PM, in article LLR0h.2203$WB4.357@trndny04, "ilaboo"
<rlener@verizon.net> wrote:

> it would seem to me the producers of water pick or other irrigators of the
> nasal mucosa should have done some studies
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>>
>> Susan

The Hydro Pulse does not contain any rubber products so it can be used by
persons who are allergic to rubber or who might develop a sensitvity due to
the rubber product.
Susan - 29 Oct 2006 02:15 GMT
> The Hydro Pulse does not contain any rubber products so it can be used by
> persons who are allergic to rubber or who might develop a sensitvity due to
> the rubber product.

Folks don't develop allergies, typically, to latex rubber that isn't
airborne, like the dust from powdered gloves.  I sleep on a 100% natural
latex mattress and pillows because they're the most comfortable in the
world and hypoallergenic.  Natural latex is inhospitable to molds and
dust mites.

The HydroPulse has a more likely source of contamination, Murray, that
damned tubing.

Susan
MS - 25 Oct 2006 04:06 GMT
> hello:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> tilted and you are pouring down.  i have felt that the neti pot can
> actually penetrate further than the hydropulse which is shooting water up.

The Waterpik's action is supposed to be pulsatile as well. In fact, for
decades before Dr. Grossan came out with his Hydropulse, he was touting the
benefits of pulsatile irrigation, using his tip with the Waterpik. I believe
the Interplak irrigator is also pulsatile.

I think that ethicare (look on web) has an electric nasal irrigator that is
supposed to be steady stream, and not pulsatile, and they claim that this is
preferred by some doctors.

Frankly, IMHO, (likely to get me flamed here by some), I don't think there
is much to the theory about pulsatile irrigation "stimulating the cilia",
etc. I think the main function of irrigation is the same, whichever device
you use--washing out the gunk! I have not seen any studies comparing
pulsatile with non-pulsatile irrigation, and have not noticed a difference
in the benefit myself. As my nose gets frequently clogged with thick phlegm,
irrigation is really important for cleaning it out, and I have been doing so
for decades, all different ways. But I have noticed no difference between
pulsatile or steady stream, nor seen any evidence substantiating the
"pulsatile is better" theory.
Susan - 25 Oct 2006 14:10 GMT
 doctors.

> Frankly, IMHO, (likely to get me flamed here by some), I don't think there
> is much to the theory about pulsatile irrigation "stimulating the cilia",
> etc.

I'm in agreement.  If it did that, I wouldn't be having the same
problems now that I had before I began using it a year and a half ago.

Susan
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.