ArticleMedeniyet medical journal2026
Microbiological Contamination of Nasal Topical Preparations Used After Septoplasty: A Comparative Analysis.
Article in Medeniyet medical journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microbiological contamination rates of nasal topical preparations (sprays, drops, and ointments) used after septoplasty at the nozzle/tube tip and drug content levels. The study also aimed to compare contamination levels in different formulations. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study included 110 patients (spray: n=38; drop: n=34; ointment: n=38) who underwent septoplasty at the ENT clinic. Patients returned their preparations after at least two weeks' postoperative use. Two separate samples were obtained from each preparation: a swab of the nozzle or tube tip and the drug content. These specimens were inoculated onto blood agar, chocolate agar, and Sabouraud dextrose agar. Isolate identification was performed using the VITEK MS (MALDI-TOF MS) system. Results: Nozzle contamination was detected in 62.7% (n=69) of the 110 preparations, and content contamination was detected in 40.9% (n=45). Nozzle contamination was significantly higher in the spray group (89.5%) than in the drop (44.1%) and ointment (52.6%) groups (p<0.001). The most frequently isolated microorganisms were coagulase-negative Conclusions: Spray formulations showed higher nozzle contamination rates than other formulations, whereas drug-content contamination appeared similar across groups. These findings suggest that contamination may occur in topical nasal preparations used after septoplasty and highlight the importance of patient education regarding hygienic use during the postoperative period. However, because baseline sterility testing and laboratory negative controls were not performed, the source of contamination cannot be determined conclusively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.