Suppr超能文献

Ultrasonic nebulization of hypertonic solution: a new method for obtaining specimens from nasal mucosa for morphologic and biochemical analysis in allergic rhinitis.

作者信息

Melillo G, Balzano G, Stefanelli F, Iorio C, De Angelis E, Melillo E

机构信息

Fondazione S. Maugeri, Divisione di Penumologia e Centro per l'Asma Bronchiale, Centro Medico, Telese Terme (BN), Italy.

出版信息

Allergy. 1998 Aug;53(8):794-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb03976.x.

Abstract

Various techniques are used to collect specimens from the nasal mucosa for morphologic and biochemical analysis. The purpose of this study was to devise a method that overcomes some of the disadvantages (e.g., invasive procedure, samples not suitable for cytologic and biochemical analysis, lack of standardization, and poor reproducibility) of these techniques. The new method requires subjects, with neck extended, to inhale an ultrasonic nebulization of a hypertonic (3% NaCl) solution (UNHS) for 5 min. They then blow their nose into a Petri dish, one nostril at a time with the other one blocked. The secretions are dispersed with 0.1% dithiothreitol in phosphate buffer solution for 20 min. Total cell count (TCC) is evaluated, and the cellular suspension is divided into two aliquots: one is centrifuged and the supernatants are collected for eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) measurements; the other is cytocentrifuged and the slides, stained with Diff-Quik, are used for differential cell count. The results obtained with the UNHS and nasal lavage (NL) methods were compared. Eleven nonatopic healthy subjects and 19 allergic rhinitic patients were studied. Total cell count (x10(5)) was significantly higher with UNHS than with NL (13.0+/-12.3 vs 1.9+/-1.6; P<0.01) The differential cell count was similar with the two procedures. ECP levels (microg/l) were higher with UNHS than with NL (39.1+/-38.2 vs 16.7+/-41.2; P<0.01). For evaluation of reproducibility, four healthy and six rhinitic subjects underwent UNHS on two occasions within 5 days, and the results of two samples (sample 1 vs sample 2) were analyzed. Reproducibility was good as to TCC, differential cell count, and ECP.

摘要

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验