Informasjon om Rhino Horn
Detaljer om Rhino Horn / Nesehorn
- Rhino Horn / Nesehorn er medisinsk utstyr til neseskylling med saltvann.
- Ansvarlig produsent av Rhino Horn / Nesehorn er Yogaprosess AS, Oslo, Norge.
- Produksjonen av Rhino Horn / Nesehorn begynte i 1998.
- Per Peo Olsen har designet Rhino Horn / Nesehorn.
- Rhino Horn / Nesehorn er fremstilt av resirkulerbar PEHD (PolyEthylene High Density).
- “Nesehorn” er et registrert varemerke i Norge, “Næsehorn” er et registrert varemerke i Danmark og “Rhino Horn” er et registrert varemerke i Norge, EU, Tyrkia, Israel, Thailand, USA og Canada.
- “Rhino Horn Junior” er registrert som varemerke i Norge og EU.
- Rhino Horn / Nesehorn og Rhino Horn Junior er CE-merket ifølge 93/42/EØS direktivet som et Klasse I medisinsk utstyr.
- Rhino Horn / Nesehorn produseres under ISO 13485:2003, et kvalitetssertifikat for produksjon av medisinsk utstyr.
- Rhino Horn / Nesehorn og Rhino Horn Junior har gjennomgått en REACH 168 test, en EU-definert test for å avdekke om det finnes noen av 168 farlige kjemikalier (SVHC – Substances of Very High Concern) som omfattes av REACH-systemet (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). Rhino Horn / Nesehorn inneholder ikke de minste spor av noen av disse farlige kjemikaliene, blant annet ikke ftalater, kadmium eller Bisphenol A.
- Rhino Horn / Nesehorn er registrert i Helsedepartementets norske nasjonale register (Utstyrsregisteret) for medisinsk utstyr under GMDN category 9, group 41599 som Nasal Irrigation Applicator.
- Helsedirektoratet har utstedt et Free Sales Certificate for Rhino Horn / Nesehorn og Rhino Horn Junior slik at det fritt kan omsettes i hele EØS-området.
Medisinske studier om virkningene av neseskylling
Wingrave W (1902) The Nature of Discharges and Douches. Lancet: 1373-1375.
Abstract: Discussing cleansing of the nasal passages as a central method of treating different illnesses in the last part of the 19th century.
Holmström M et al. (1997) Effect of Nasal Lavage on Nasal Symptoms and Physiology in Wood Industry workers. Rhinology 35: 108-112.
Abstract: A Swedish study of the effect of daily use of nasal cleansing of the nose with salt water for workers of the wood industry. There was a positive effect both on the experienced symptoms and also on the measured functions of the nose of these workers.
Talbot AR et al. (1997) Mucociliary Clearance and Buffered Hypertonic Saline Solution. Laryngoscope 107:500-503
Abstract: Buffered hypertonic saline nasal irrigation is an important addition to the care of sinus disease, both chronic and post surgical. Buffered hypertonic saline irrigation should be used in chronic and postoperative sinus patients. Those with other causes of sinusitis may also benefit from regular nasal irrigation with this solution.
Taccariello M et al. (1999) Nasal Douching as a Valuable Adjunct in the Management of Chronic Rhino-Sinusitis. Rhinology 37: 29-32
Abstract: An English study showing the significant improvement of the conditions in the nasal passages and improvement of the general quality of life of patients with chronic sinusitis, associated with the use of cleansing the nose with salt water.
Tomooka LT et al. (2000) Clinical Study and Literature Review of Nasal Irrigation. The Laryngoscope 110: 1189-1193.
Abstract: An American Study of 211 patients with different inflammatory conditions in the nose including allergic problems. They found that the daily use of nasal cleansing with salt water significantly improved a great lot of parameters of experienced discomfort. They concluded that this treatment has an enormous potential of improving the quality of life of millions of patients in a very cost effective way.
Heatley DG et al.(2001) Nasal Irrigation for the Alleviation of Sinonasal Symptoms. Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery 125 (1): 44-48
Abstract: Daily nasal irrigation with hypertonic saline significantly improved symptoms of chronic sinusitis in this study. Many subjects were able to decrease or eliminate medication used during the study period.
Wormald PJ et al. (2004) A Comparative Study of Three Methods of Nasal Irrigation. The Laryngoscope 114: 2224-2227.
Abstract: Based on the radiographic evaluation, nasal douches are more effective in distributing irrigation solution to the maxillary sinus and frontal recess compared to nasal spray and nebulization with RinoFlow.
Brown CL, Graham SM (2004) Nasal irrigations: good or bad? Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head & Neck Surgery 12 (1): 9–13.
Abstract: Nasal irrigations should no longer be considered merely adjunctive measures in managing sinonasal conditions. They are effective and underutilized. Apart from improved patient symptomatology, prescription medication use is often decreased. When nasal irrigations are combined with other medical modalities, patients with chronic sinusitis may not require surgical intervention as often.
Harvey RJ et al. (2008) Effects of endoscopic sinus surgery and delivery device on cadaver sinus irrigation. Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery 139: 137-142.
Abstract: ESS greatly enhances the delivery of nasal
solutions, regardless of delivery device. Influence of delivery device on distribution was significantly higher with neti pot > squeeze bottle > pressurized spray.
Beule A et al. (2009) Efficacy of different techniques of sinonasal irrigation after modified Lothrop procedure. American journal of rhinology & allergy 23(1): 85-90. Abstract: The vertex to floor position using a squeeze bottle technique is advocated (in comparison to a spray). There may be some patients, however, for whom this position is not feasible. In these patients “bending over the sink,” while inferior to the “vertex to floor” position, still ensures some irrigation of the frontal sinus.
Welch KC et al. (2009) Clinical correlation between irrigation bottle contamination and clinical outcomes in post-functional endoscopic sinus surgery patients. American journal of rhinology & allergy 23(4): 401-404.
Abstract: Irrigation bottles used postoperatively have a measurable incidence of contamination. Contamination rate increases when bottles are used for longer than 1 week.
Keen M et al. (2010) The clinical significance of nasal irrigation bottle contamination. Laryngoscope 120(10): 2110-2114.
Abstract: Patients who irrigate their nose and sinuses commonly contaminate their irrigation bottle, most often with S. aureus, which can be in the biofilm form. Concurrent sinonasal and bottle infection with S. aureus was seen in 51% of patients during the study. Simple cleaning (methods Milton’s solution and microwaving) could reduce contamination of the bottles.
Fokkens WJ et al. (2012) European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS 2012). Rhinology supplement 23: 1-298.
Abstract: European Rinologic Society (ERS) and The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, (EAACI) guidelines for acute and chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps based on a systematic review (Evidence Based Medicine – EBM). Nasal saline irrigation (NSI) falls within recommended therapies with well-documented effects.
The American Rhinologic Society: Nasal/Sinus Irrigation