Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:31:46.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pictorial assessment of the delivery of oropharyngeal rinse versus oropharyngeal spray

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2007

S. K. Patel ,
K. Ghufoor ,
S. M. Jayaraj ,
D. W. McPartlin  and
J. Philpott
S. K. Patel*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, St. Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
K. Ghufoor
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, St. Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
S. M. Jayaraj
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, St. Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
D. W. McPartlin
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, St. Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
J. Philpott
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, St. Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Mr. S. K. Patel, St. Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London W2 1NY.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Oral rinses/gargles and oral sprays are frequently used in the management of oropharyngeal inflammation. This pictorial study, using methylene blue dye as a marker of the distribution of these topical preparations in the oropharynx, suggests that oral sprays are more effective in coating the oropharynx than oral rinses, whilst oral rinses are better at staining the oral cavity and base of tongue. The authors therefore suggest that oral rinses should be used to treat disease in the oral cavity and oral sprays should be used to treat ailments in the oropharynx.

Keywords

OropharynxDrug therapyAdministration, oral
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 113 , Issue 12 , December 1999 , pp. 1092 - 1094
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Difflam® rinse and Difflam® spray data sheets: Pubi. 3M Healthcare Ltd., Morley Street, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 1EP. 08 1996.Google Scholar
Irwin, B. C., Acharya, K. B. (1984) A comparative study of benzydamine hydrochloride 0.15 per cent w/v (Difflam® oral rinse) and acetylsalicylic acid as analgesics following tonsillectomy. Journal of International Medical Research 12 (3): 216–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, T. B., Wickham, M. H. (1986) The effect of benzydamine hydrochloride (Difflam®) spray on post-tonsillectomy symptoms: a double blind study. Journal of Laryngology and Otology 100 (3): 303–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valijan, A. (1989) Pain relief after tonsillectomy. Effect of benzydamine hydrochloride spray on post-operative pain relief after tonsillectomy. Anaesthesia 44 (12): 990–991.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, J. R. (1987) A comparative study of benzydamine hydrochloride (Difflam® pump spray) and placebo as analgesics following tonsillectomy. International Journal of Tissue Reaction 9 (2): 131–133.Google ScholarPubMed