Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Sinusitis / November 2006
pulsatile vs constant flow / waterpik vs neti pot
|
|
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
|
|
|