Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27864671›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2017

Effects of polymer-based, silver nanoparticle-coated silicone splints on the nasal mucosa of rats.

Sultan Şevik Eliçora, Duygu Erdem, Aykut Erdem Dinç, Özlem Altunordu Kalaycı, Baki Hazer, Gamze Yurdakan, Canan Külah

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sultan Şevik EliçoraDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey. drsultan@mynet.com.
Duygu ErdemDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey.
Aykut Erdem DinçDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey.
Özlem Altunordu KalaycıDepartment of Physics, Faculty of Arts and Science, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey.
Baki HazerDepartment of Chemistry, Engineering of Nanotechnology, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey.
Gamze YurdakanDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey.
Canan KülahDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey.
Bülent Ecevit University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infection is a serious complication after nasal packing that otolaryngologists seek to avoid. The aim of this study is to investigate the use of silver (Ag) nanoparticle, which serves as antimicrobial agents, with nasal tampons. The study design is an experimental animal model and the setting is tertiary referral center. Twenty-four rats were randomized into the following four groups: (1) control group (n = 6); (2) silicone nasal splint (SNS) group (n  =  6); (3) polypropylene-grafted polyethylene glycol (PP-g-PEG) amphiphilic graft copolymer-coated SNS group (n  =  6); and (4) Ag nanoparticle-embedded PP-g-PEG (Ag-PP-g-PEG) amphiphilic graft copolymer-coated SNS group (n  =  6). These tampons were applied to rats for 48 h, after which they were removed in a sterile manner, and the rats were sacrificed. The nasal septa of the rats were excised, and assessments of tissue changes in the nasal mucosa were compared among the groups. The removed tampons were microbiologically examined, and quantitative analyses were made. When the groups were compared microbiologically, there were no significant differences in bacterial colonization rates of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus spp. among the three groups (p = 0.519), but there was a statistically significant difference among bacterial colonization rates of Heamophilus parainfluenzae and Corynebacterium spp. (p = 0.018, p = 0.004). We found that H. parainfluenzae grew less robustly in the Ag-PP-g-PEG than the PP-g-PEG group (p = 0.017). However, we found no significant difference between the Ag-PP-g-PEG and SNS groups, or between the SNS and PP-g-PEG groups. The growth of Corynebacterium spp. did not differ significantly between the Ag-PP-g-PEG and SNS groups (p = 1.000). When Group 4 was compared with Group 2, the former showed less inflammation. Compared with other tampons, Ag-PP-g-PEG amphiphilic graft copolymer-coated silicone nasal tampons caused less microbiological colonization and inflammation. Therefore, the use of these tampons may prevent secondary infections and reduce the risk of developing complications by minimizing tissue damage.

Indexed as

Metal NanoparticlesSplintsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDisease Models, AnimalMaleNasal MucosaNasal SeptumNasal Surgical ProceduresRatsSiliconesSilverSurgical Wound InfectionTampons, SurgicalTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsSiliconesSilverAg nanoparticleNasal splintNasal tamponPolyethylene glycol

Identifiers

PMID27864671
OpenAlexW2550266763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.