Background Nasal irrigation is widely used as an adjunctive treatment for nasal diseases. There is little evidence regarding the efficacy of the devices used in this procedure. The objective of this survey was to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices based on the experiences of patients and physicians. Methods We conducted a multicentre survey study between November 2017 and October 2018. Physician and patient questionnaires were developed based on the available literature and expert opinion. The physician questionnaire was submitted to the Otolaryngology residents and staff of each centre and their network. The physicians were also asked to distribute the patient questionnaire to their patients. Results Information regarding 331 devices used by the patients was collected. The mean age of the patients was 45.46 ± 17.19 years (from 5 to 81). Roughly half were male, and half were female (48.6%: 51.4%). Among the high-pressure devices, we found that the high-pressure large-volume nasal irrigation devices yielded significantly higher symptom scores in seven of 12 domains (p < 0.05). Among the large-volume devices, we found that the large-volume high-pressure nasal irrigation devices received significantly higher symptom scores in 4 of 12 domains (p < 0.05). However, a higher proportion of patients using the large-volume high-pressure devices had retained fluid in the sinuses compared to those using large-volume low-pressure devices (p < 0.001). Conclusions This survey supports the regular use of nasal irrigation, particularly with large-volume high-pressure devices, as an effective treatment for nasal disease. It may be effective at clearing nasal secretion, improve nasal congestion, decrease post-nasal drip, improve sinus pain or headache, improve taste and smell, and improve sleep quality. It could be used by patients with good compliance and minimal side effects.

Background: Nasal irrigation is widely used as an adjunctive treatment for rhinosinusitis. However, there is little information available regarding the efficacy of the devices used in this procedure. The objective of this study was thus to evaluate the effectiveness of nasal irrigation devices based on the experiences of patients with rhinosinusitis. Methods: We conducted a multicenter survey study between November 2017 and December 2019. The questionnaire was developed based on the available literature and expert opinion and submitted to the otolaryngology residents and staff of each center as well as those in their networks. Results: Four hundred eighteen patients were enrolled in this study: 76 with acute viral rhinosinusitis (18%), 53 with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (13%), 156 with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (37%), and 133 with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (32%). We found that high-volume devices were most effective in helping to clear secretion in patients with acute viral rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (P = .017, .009, .002, respectively) and in reducing post-nasal drip in those with acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (P = .040). There were no statistically significant differences among devices in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Conclusions: Nasal irrigation with high-volume devices was an effective treatment for rhinosinusitis and was more effective at clearing nasal secretion and reducing post-nasal drip than that with other types of devices.