Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial

Arjun Talapatra; Shaji Mathew; Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi; Rama Rani

doi:10.12688/f1000research.139742.2

Home Browse Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Clinical trial

Revised

Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Arjun Talapatra¹, Shaji Mathew¹, Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi ¹, Rama Rani¹

PUBLISHED 10 Jun 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India

Arjun Talapatra
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Shaji Mathew
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization

Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi
Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Rama Rani
Roles: Project Administration, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Health Services gateway.

This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway.

Abstract

Background

Post-operative sore throat (POST) is one of the most common complaints post-endotracheal intubation and can be decreased through various interventions. This study aimed to determine the effect of fluticasone-impregnated versus saline throat packs on the occurrence and severity of POST and voice hoarseness.

Methods

This prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial was conducted on patients undergoing nasosinus surgeries at Kasturba Medical College and Hospital. Patients were randomized to groups based on a computer-generated table of random numbers post-intubation after placing a definite length of oropharyngeal packs into group F (fluticasone) who received four puffs of fluticasone furoate-soaked throat packs and group C (control) wherein normal saline-soaked throat packs were used. Determining the incidence of POST and voice hoarseness was the primary outcome; severity of POST and voice hoarseness, patient satisfaction scores at 24 hours post-surgery and adverse events were secondary outcomes.

Results

Overall, 86 patients were randomized and 43 patients were included in each group. Incidence of POST (%) and voice hoarseness (%) were 55.8, 55.6, 55.8, 53.4 and 30.2, 28, 28, 28 in group C. Incidence of POST (%) and voice hoarseness (%) were 37.2, 37.2, 37.2, 34.8 and 14, 14, 14,14 in group F at 1, 2, 6 and 24 hours, respectively, however, the p values were not found to be significant at any time interval. There was no significant difference in terms of severity of POST and voice hoarseness, patient satisfaction scores between the groups and there were no reported adverse events.

Conclusions

In patients undergoing nasosinus surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation, fluticasone furoate-impregnated throat packs failed to show any significant reduction in the incidence and severity of POST as well as hoarseness of voice, and even though it was not statistically significant, the fluticasone impregnated group had higher patient satisfaction scores.

Registration

CTRI (CTRI/2020/09/027946; 22/09/2020).

Keywords

Endotracheal intubation, Fluticasone furoate, Hoarseness of voice, Nasosinus surgeries, Postoperative sore throat

Corresponding author: Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2024 Talapatra A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Talapatra A, Mathew S, Kanakalakshmi ST and Rani R. Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:1352 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139742.2) First published: 17 Oct 2023, 12:1352 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139742.1) Latest published: 10 Jun 2024, 12:1352 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139742.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Changes made from version1 to version 2:
• We have changed the prevalence of POST and hoarseness of voice and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
• We have added supporting studies on throat packs including the effectiveness or limitations of these interventions.
• We have elaborated the gap that exists on the use of throat packs soaked with steroid sprays and further fluticasone furoate is being considered for impregnating throat packs, especially in comparison to other available steroids or anti-inflammatory agents.
• We have rephrased to clearly state each objective and its significance in the context of the study.
• We have mentioned the specific impact of POST on patients' experience as well as practical implications of mitigating POST.
• We have mentioned the rationale behind choosing fluticasone furoate specifically, considering its anti-inflammatory properties and its potential advantages over other steroids.
• We have discussed the implications of the study's limitations on the generalizability of the findings.
• We have suggested potential avenues for future research which includes recommendations for larger multi-centre trials, exploring different patient populations, or investigating variations in the intervention protocol.
• We have mentioned a lower incidence and severity of POST in the fluticasone group, which were clinically meaningful they were not statistically significant.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Ajinkya Pawar
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Mathew George
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Riniki Sarma

Introduction

Tracheal intubation is mostly performed under general anesthesia to secure the airway and is usually associated with variable degrees of trauma. Postoperative sore throat (POST), which ranges from 30% to 70%, is one of the commonest consequences of intubation, while hoarseness of voice varies from 16-55%.¹^–³ Although clinicians often regard POST as a relatively minor complication it imparts a strongly negative influence on the overall experience of surgery and stay in the hospital postoperatively.⁴ POST is caused by a number of different factors, including vocal cord damage, congestive blood loss, and damage to the epithelium and mucosal cells caused by airway secretion.⁵ In recent years, it has been reported that the shape of tracheal tubes, the size of the cuffs, the endotracheal intubation technique, the cuff pressure, and the use of inhalation anesthesia as contributing factors to POST.⁶^–¹¹

Many surgical subspecialties use throat packs for various reasons. During surgery, they gather blood, secretions, and bone and cartilage fragments. It is asserted that doing so will lessen their inhalation and swallowing after surgery, which will lessen the likelihood of postoperative complications.¹² Even though there are several advantages of inserting throat packs there are certain drawbacks and POST is major among them. Prior studies have revealed the significant influence of throat pack on postoperative sore throat.¹³

To reduce the frequency of POST, many interventions can be used, including the use of compact tracheal tubes,¹⁴ using video laryngoscopy during intubation,¹⁵ limiting endotracheal cuff pressure,¹⁶ using steroids during surgery,¹⁷^–¹⁹ topically applying non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs),²⁰ or using different gargles (magnesium and ketamine) during surgery.²¹ In pharmacological interventions aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of steroids, administration of dexamethasone at a dosage of 0.2 mg/kg has shown significant promise in reducing the occurrence of POST. In the case of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), notable prophylactic effects were observed with benzydamine treatment, exhibiting a risk ratio of 0.31. Additionally, the use of flurbiprofen lozenges at a dosage of 8.75 mg effectively mitigated the severity, though not the incidence of early POST.

In non-pharmacological interventions, the selection of tracheal tube size emerges as a pivotal factor in minimizing POST and ensuring optimal airway management during intubation. Recommended sizes range from 6.0-7.5 mm for females and 7.0-8.0 mm for males. Excessive cuff pressure can lead to mucosal trauma and pressure-related injuries, consequently increasing the likelihood of POST occurrence. To mitigate these effects, a prospective randomized control trial demonstrated that maintaining cuff pressure at 25 mmHg was associated with a lower incidence of POST.²²^–²⁵

The topical administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, lidocaine, steroids, N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonists, and Glycyrrhiza have all been used to prevent POST through various mechanisms of action, according to systematic reviews.²⁶ Intranasal steroids are suitable for high drug concentrations in the nasal mucosa with minimal or no systemic side effects. Among intranasal steroids currently available, fluticasone exhibits the greatest affinity and selectivity for glucocorticoid receptors, along with the longest tissue retention. These distinct pharmacological traits make its robust anti-inflammatory effects at the intended site of action over other anti-inflammatory agents.²⁷

However, a thorough search of the literature showed no evidence of studies involving the use of throat packs soaked with steroid sprays.²⁸ Prior clinical trials have shown good clinical efficacy of fluticasone furoate in patients with upper respiratory tract inflammation. As fluticasone furoate reduce the symptoms of upper respiratory tract inflammation, they could reduce POST without adverse effects. Thus, we need more qualified data on its effects to minimize POST which would be helpful to assess the improved management.²⁷

Our study drug, fluticasone furoate is typically available as a nasal spray and studies have not shown any adverse effects associated with the application of this spray. Therefore, the objective was to compare the effectiveness of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on the incidence and severity of POST and hoarseness of voice.

Methods

Ethical approval

This clinical trial received approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee (Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC no: 714/2019, dated 18/09/2019) and was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI; Registration no: CTRI/2020/09/027946; 22/09/2020). Patients provided written informed consent.

Trial design

Between September 2020 and July 2021, patients scheduled for nasosinus surgeries under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation at Kasturba Medical College and Hospital participated in this prospective, 1:1 randomized, double-blinded clinical trial. After receiving approval from the Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital Institutional Ethics Committee and registering with the CTRI, 86 patients were enrolled using the inclusion and exclusion criteria after providing written informed consent without any deviation from the original trial protocol and the trial was conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. This study adheres to the CONSORT guidelines, and the proforma, model consent form and protocol can be found as Extended data.⁴⁶

Participants

Participants classified as I or II according to the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, patients aged 18–60 years of both sexes were included in the study. Whereas those with a pre-existing sore throat and/or hoarseness of voice, anticipated difficult airway, already on steroids, requiring more than two attempts at endotracheal intubation and trauma during intubation were excluded.

Simple randomization with a 1:1 allocation ratio was carried out using an online randomization service. After patients had finished all baseline assessments and observer one had been blinded, sequentially numbered, opaque, and sealed envelopes were opened to reveal the allocation sequence.

Interventions

Patient preparation: On the morning of operation, all patients were given tab ranitidine 150 mg and tab metoclopramide 10 mg. Nil per oral orders of 6 hours for solids and 2 hours for clear fluids was advised. The patient was identified on the day of surgery, fasting status was confirmed and they were shifted to the operating room. The monitors included a 5-electrode ECG, a non-invasive blood pressure monitor, and a pulse oximeter before induction of anaesthesia. Baseline blood pressure, heart rate and peripheral oxygen saturation were noted. The intravenous line was secured with a suitable gauge intravenous catheter under aseptic precautions, and the Ringer’s lactate infusion was started.

All the patients were pre-oxygenated for 3 minutes with 100% oxygen before being induced with intravenous 2 μg/kg fentanyl, induction with 2-3 mg/kg propofol, and neuromuscular blockade (NMB) with 0.1 mg/kg vecuronium. When the train-of-four count was zero, the patient was intubated under direct laryngoscopy (7 mm tube for females and 8 mm tube for males), which was inflated with air to a pressure of 25 mmHg. The demographic characteristics in terms of age, sex, BMI, smoking history and the mean duration of surgery were analyzed.

Observer one performed a preoperative evaluation and obtained informed consent. He was blinded to the group the patient was allotted. Additionally, he evaluated the patient after surgery and recorded the occurrence and severity of POST, voice hoarseness, and patient satisfaction score based on a predetermined score. Observer two performed the intubation and intervention according to the group allotted. Based on the group allocated, the patient received the throat pack soaked with either four puffs (400 mcg) of fluticasone furoate spray for group F and normal saline for group C. With the aid of Magill’s forceps and direct laryngoscopy, packs with standard dimensions of 120 cm × 7.5 cm were inserted. The use of steroids was avoided intraoperatively. Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane, 40% oxygen and 60% air. Cuff pressure was kept below 25 cm H₂O throughout the operation. In the end, the anesthetic agents were tapered and stopped, and 0.05 mg/kg of neostigmine was used to counter residual NMB. None of the patients received glycopyrrolate preoperatively or during the procedure. The throat pack was removed under direct laryngoscopy once the surgery was completed after gentle oral suctioning. Once the extubation criteria were satisfied, the patient was extubated and moved to the postoperative recovery room.

Parameters assessed

• Age, sex, BMI, smoking history and the mean duration of surgery were documented.
• Post-operative sore throat at 1 hour, 2 hours, 6 hours and 24 hours using a 4-point scale.
• Hoarseness of voice at 1 hour, 6 hours and 24 hours using a 4-point scale.
• Patient satisfaction score at 24 hours in the postoperative period.

Observer 1 interviewed patients at 1, 2, 6, and 24 hours to assess the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat and hoarseness of voice, patient satisfaction level as well as any adverse events.

Postoperative assessment

The post-operative sore throat severity¹⁸ was graded as follows: i) Grade 0, no sore throat at any time since the operation; ii) Grade 1, no pain, only discomfort or itchy sensation in the throat; iii) Grade 2, pain on swallowing or attempt at swallowing; and iv) Grade 3, pain at rest.

The severity of the hoarseness of voice¹⁹ was graded as follows: i) Grade 0, no evidence of hoarseness of voice at any time since the operation; ii) Grade 1, no evidence of hoarseness at the time of the interview; iii) Grade 2, hoarseness at the time of interview noted by the patient only; and iv) Grade 3, hoarseness that is easily noted by the assessor at the time of the interview.

Patient satisfaction score was graded as follows: i) Score 0, poor; ii) Score 1, fair; iii) Score 2, good; and iv) Score 3, excellent.

Outcomes

The primary outcome analyzed was the incidence of POST and post-operative voice hoarseness at 1, 2, 6 and 24 hours in both group C and group F. The secondary outcomes analyzed were severity of POST and voice hoarseness at 1, 2, 6 and 24 hours in both the groups including patient satisfaction scores at 24 hours post-surgery and any adverse events.

Blinding

Observer one was the principal investigator who did the preoperative evaluation, after checking suitability for inclusion criteria in the study and obtaining written informed consent. He was blinded to the group the patient was allotted. He explained to the patient about the study and assessed the patient postoperatively on their grade of postoperative sore throat, hoarseness of voice and patient satisfaction score according to a pre-existing scoring scale.

Observer two was the Consultant anaesthesiologist, who performed the laryngoscopy and intubation and performed the intervention according to the group allotted.

Statistical analysis

A pilot study with 10 patients in each group revealed that the control group had a 60% incidence of POST and the experimental group had a 40% incidence, which was used to determine the sample size. We required 96 patients in each group with a 20% difference between the two groups, assuming 85% power and a 5% level of significance. However, given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, due to a drastic reduction in the number of elective nasosinus surgeries in our institute, we were able to conduct our trial only in 86 patients (43 per group), despite extending our study period for three more months. For continuous variables, the data were presented as mean, and for categorical variables, as a percentage of frequency. To analyze significant differences between dichotomous variables, the chi-squared test was used. The term “p-value <0.05” denoted a statistically significant result. IBM SPSS Statistics (RRID:SCR_016479) 20.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, US), a statistical software program, was used to conduct the statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 106 ASA I–II patients were screened in our study of which only 86 patients were included in our study. Of the 20 excluded, 11 patients required repeated attempts for intubation while nine required airway adjuncts (Figure 1).

Figure 1. CONSORT diagram.

Group C, Control group; Group F, Fluticasone group.

There were 43 patients in each group and their demographic characteristics were comparable with no significant difference in terms of age, sex, and smoking history. The majority of patients in either group had ASA physical status II. The mean duration of surgery among both groups was also similar (Table 1).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics.

Characteristics	Group C (Mean ± SD) (n=43)	Group F (Mean ± SD) (n=43)	p-value
Age (in years)	29.2 ± 3.9	29.8 ± 3.5	0.52
Female participants	25	26	0.43
BMI (kg/m²)	27.4 ± 3.9	26.4 ± 2.9	0.3
Smoking history	13	15	0.63
Duration of surgery (hours)	2.3 ± 0.3	2.4. ± 0.3	0.92

Recruitment

Primary outcome

Incidences of postoperative sore throat were 55.8, 55.6, 55.8 and 53.4% in group C at 1, 2, 6 and 24 hours and 37.2, 37.2, 37.2 and 34.8% in group F at 1, 2, 6 and 24 hours, respectively (Table 2, Figure 2). Incidences of postoperative hoarseness of voice were found to be 30.2, 28.0, 28.0 and 28.0% in group C at 1, 2, 6 and 24 hours and 14.0, 14.0, 14.0 and 14.0% in the group F at 1, 2, 6 and 24 hours, respectively (Table 2, Figure 3). Although there was a lower incidence of POST and hoarseness of voice in the fluticasone group at 1, 2, 6 and 24 hours, the p values were not found to be significant at any time interval.

Table 2. Primary outcomes.

Time interval (in hours)	Incidence of POST		p-value	Incidence of postoperative hoarseness of voice		p-value
Time interval (in hours)	Group C (n=43) (n, % (95% CI))	Group F (n=43) (n, % (95% CI))	p-value	Group C (n=43) (n, % (95% CI))	Group F (n=43) (n, % (95% CI))	p-value
1	24 (55.8%) (0.411, 0.695)	16 (37.2%) (0.243, 0.521)	0.52	13 (30.2%) (0.185, 0.452)	6 (14%) (0.061, 0.276)	0.11
2	24 (55.8%) (0.411, 0.695)	16 (37.2%) (0.243, 0.521)	0.52	12 (28%) (0.185, 0.452)	6 (14%) (0.061, 0.276)	0.18
6	24 (55.8%) (0.411, 0.695)	16 (37.2%) (0.243, 0.521)	0.52	12 (28%) (0.185, 0.452)	6 (14%) (0.061, 0.276)	0.18
24	23 (53.4%) (0.389, 0.674)	15 (34.8%) (0.223, 0.498)	0.12	12 (28%) (0.185, 0.452)	6 (14%) (0.061, 0.276)	0.18

Figure 2. Incidence of POST.

POST, postoperative sore throat.

Figure 3. Incidence of postoperative hoarseness of voice.

Secondary outcomes

According to the criteria outlined in the methodology, the degree of POST and hoarseness of voice were graded.

At 24 hours after surgery, Grade 0 severity of POST were present in 28 patients in group C (65.1%) and 20 patients in group F (46.5%); Grade 1 severity of POST were present in 14 patients in group C (32.5%) and 10 patients in group F (23.2%); Grade 2 severity of POST were present in 7 patients in group C (16.2%) and 5 patients in group F (11.6%); only 2 patients in group C (4.6%) and none of the patients in group F had grade 3 severity of POST. Nevertheless, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (Table 3).

Table 3. Secondary outcomes.

Grading of severity at 24 hours	Severity of POST		p-value	Severity of postoperative hoarseness of voice		p-value
Grading of severity at 24 hours	Group C (n=43) (n, % (95% CI))	Group F (n=43) (n, % (95% CI))	p-value	Group C (n=43) (n, % (95% CI))	Group F (n=43) (n, % (95% CI))	p-value
0	28 (65.1%) (0.501, 0.776)	20 (46.5%) (0.325, 0.610)	0.072	23 (53.4%) (0.389, 0.674)	18 (41.8%) (0.283, 0.566)	0.099
1	14 (32.5%) (0.204, 0.475)	10 (23.2%) (0.129, 0.379)		10 (23.2%) (0.129, 0.379)	9 (20.9%) (0.112, 0.354)
2	7 (16.2%) (0.078, 0.302)	5 (11.6%) (0.046, 0.249)		14 (32.5%) (0.204, 0.475)	10 (23.2%) (0.129, 0.379)
3	2 (4.6%) (0.004, 0.163)	0		1 (2.3%) (0.0001, 0.131)	1 (2.3%) (0.0001, 0.131)

A total of 23 patients in group C (53.4%) and 18 patients in group F (41.8%) both experienced grade 0 hoarseness of the voice. Grade 1 was present in 10 patients in group C (23.2%) and nine patients in group F (20.9%). Grade 2 hoarseness of voice affected 14 patients in group C (32.5%) and 10 patients in group F (23.2%). At 24 hours after surgery, there was one patient in group C (2.3%) and one patient in group F (2.3%) who both had grade 3 hoarseness of voice. The difference between the groups was present, but it was not statistically significant (Table 3).

Most of the patients in both groups had excellent patient satisfaction scores, however, patients in group F had higher satisfaction scores 24 hours postoperatively but were not statistically significant (Table 4).

Table 4. Patient satisfaction score at 24 hours.

Score	Group C (n = 43)	Group F (n = 43)	P-value
0	6	2	0.072
1	7	6
2	9	6
3	21	29

Adverse events

Neither group experienced any adverse effects.

Discussion

Endotracheal intubation is the most definitive way of securing the airway. Many anesthesiologists consider POST, a frequent anesthetic complication, to be a minor complication. However, for some patients, it might be their initial complaint as soon as they regain consciousness, hence reduction of POST enhances postoperative patient comfort, satisfaction and overall hospital stay.²⁹ In a prospective one-year follow-up study involving 5228 post-operative patients, 97.5% were reported dissatisfied, and in a cross-sectional study a prolonged hospital stay was associated in patients with POST due to naso-gastric tube insertion, blood-stained tracheal tubes.³⁰^,³¹

Throat packs are used in oronasal procedures mainly to prevent intraoperative aspiration of blood into the respiratory and digestive tract. It is common knowledge that using pharyngeal packs makes recovery from surgery more painful and uncomfortable. POST brought on by oropharyngeal packs is unclear. It is postulated that the hard, abrasive cotton fibres of the pack can cause dryness of the surrounding tissues as well as the instrumentation per se can cause local inflammation eventually leading to POST and hoarseness of voice.³² Even though various pharmacological modalities of attenuating POST have been studied in the past¹⁴^–²¹ there is no extensive literature documenting the use of steroid-impregnated throat packs. Since steroids have an anti-inflammatory effect, we analyzed their effect in mitigating POST and hoarseness of voice. Patients with POST might benefit from a short course of low-to-moderate dose corticosteroids by lowering the inflammation of upper respiratory tract. Fluticasone is corticosteroid which can be used via oral, nasal and tropical route. In 2016 fluticasone received FDA approval for upper respiratory allergy symptoms in adults and children over four years of age. Moreover, in comparison to other clinically used anti-inflammatory agents, fluticasone furoate enhanced receptor affinity and prolonged residence time in the tissue produce a more potent and prolonged anti-inflammatory effect at the target site.²⁷

In prior studies, patient factors predicting POST included young age, being female and having a smoking history.³³^,³⁴ Lautenbacher et al.,³⁵ and Petrini et al.,³⁶ revealed that older patients when compared to the younger age group had a lesser response to pain stimulus as ageing reduces pain sensitivity and intensity, thus suggesting young age as a predictor of POST. However, in our study, we found no difference among the groups as the majority of the patients in both groups were young. According to Feine et al.,³⁷ women are more sensitive to the intensity of the pain and men typically have higher pain tolerance thresholds²⁸ suggesting that female patients tend to have a higher incidence of POST. Similar to the study by Jaensson et al.,³⁸ who found no appreciable difference in POST incidence between men and women, there is no effect of sex on POST and hoarseness of voice in this study. Smoking is a significant predictor because it is known to cause airway inflammation on its own,³⁹^,⁴⁰ which contributes to POST, however, due to the small sample size in this study, we were unable to detect any influence on POST, which is similar to the study by Lee et al.⁴¹

In the study by Higgins et al.,² he found that the incidence of POST was higher in those with ASA physical status III when compared to those with ASA I/II (p≤0.05), however in our study all the patients had ASA status of I/II, thus no difference could be recorded. Longer surgery times have been shown in earlier studies⁴²^,⁴³ to affect the occurrence of POST, with factors including surgical manipulation of the airway and surrounding tissue, repeated suctioning, high anesthetic gas flow rates, and lack of airway humidity as contributors. However, in our study, there was no such difference because all of the patients were posted for nasosinus surgery and the surgical times in the two groups were comparable.

The overall incidence of POST and hoarseness of voice in our study was similar to the study done in 2017 on Korean patients by Lee et al.,⁴¹ wherein 207 patients were analyzed, among whom 119 patients (57.5%) developed POST and 80 patients (38.6%) developed hoarseness of voice. However, many prior studies have shown that the incidence of POST may be up to 70% and that of hoarseness is reported to range from 4–43%.¹^–⁴ Even though the incidence of POST and hoarseness of voice was lower in the fluticasone group than in the control group in this study, there was never a postoperative difference that was statistically significant. This study is comparable to one by Park SY et al.,⁴⁴ which compared the incidence of POST in patients with tracheal tubes impregnated with triamcinolone acetonide (n=72) and chlorhexidine (n=72) during intubation involving 150 patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy wherein the study design, patient populations, and interventions were almost similar to our study. His research demonstrated that when compared to the chlorhexidine group (71.8%; 51/72) the incidence of POST was significantly lower in the steroid-impregnated group (19.4%; 14/72) (p<0.001).

The overall severity of POST as well as hoarseness of voice was lower fluticasone group but was not statistically significant. These results are similar to the study by Park SY et al.,⁴⁴ wherein the severity of POST was analyzed at 1, 6 and 24 hours and found that among 72 patients in the steroid-soaked throat pack group majority (68/72) had grade 0 severity at 1 hour and 24 hours and very few (10/72) had grade 1 severity of POST, which is similar to our study, however, their study revealed significant difference (p<0.001), which is unlike our study and probably can be explained by the small sample size in each group.

The majority of patients in this study reported positive experiences with fluticasone-impregnated throat packs when compared to the placebo group, but the findings were not statistically significant. The analysis of POST in 140 patients who needed intubation by Macintosh laryngoscope versus GlideScope in the study by Aqil M et al.,⁴⁵ also included patient satisfaction scores at 24 hours following surgery, which was similar to our study.

Strength of the study

Randomized controlled trial design and accurate comparison of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs with saline throat packs on the incidence and severity of POST is considered to be strength of our study.

Limitations

This was a single center study with a relatively small sample size. Our study included only nasosinus surgeries and with respect to the endotracheal tube, the number of attempts, time taken for insertion and cuff pressure were not analyzed in this study. This single centered study may limit the generalizability of the findings. The relatively small sample size could have influenced the statistical significance of certain outcomes. The study exclusively focused on nasosinus surgeries, potentially limiting the extrapolation of results to other surgical procedures. Additionally, while the study addressed various aspects of endotracheal tube management, such as size and position, it did not analyze parameters such as the number of attempts, insertion time, or cuff pressure, which are also crucial factors in airway management but were beyond the scope of this investigation.

Generalisability

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the highest level of evidence. In this study we utilised the anti-inflammatory property of fluticasone furoate on reducing POST, which is one of the most disturbing after effects post-endotracheal intubation. Even though our study showed lesser incidence and severity of POST as well as hoarseness of voice it was not statistically significant, which might be due to small sample size in each group. Thus, after proving with an adequate sample size, our intervention could be applicable and would be beneficial in reducing the incidence of POST in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. Multicenter studies with larger sample sizes exploring the impact of different surgical procedures on airway management outcomes are needed to provide valuable insights into optimizing patient care across various surgical specialties. Additionally, investigating the effectiveness of specific airway management techniques or devices, such as video laryngoscopy or alternative methods for endotracheal tube insertion, could further refine clinical practices.

Conclusions

The frequency and severity of POST and hoarseness of voice in patients undergoing nasosinus surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were not significantly reduced by fluticasone furoate-impregnated throat packs. It gave a higher satisfaction score after 24 hours even though it was statistically insignificant.

Data availability

Underlying data

Due to the fact that open posting of data on a repository was not included in the study information sheet at the time the study was done, data access will be granted once users have consented to the data sharing agreement and provided written plans and justification for what is proposed with the data. Data access may be obtained by submitting a request to the corresponding author.

Extended data

Figshare: Protocol, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23850630.v4.⁴⁶

This project contains the following extended data:

- CONSORT Checklist.doc
- Proforma.docx
- Informed consent.docx
- Protocol.doc

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

1. Tanaka Y, Nakayama T, Nishimori M, et al.: Lidocaine for preventing postoperative sore throat. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015; 7. Publisher Full Text
2. Yamanaka H, Hayashi Y, Watanabe Y, et al.: Prolonged hoarseness and arytenoid cartilage dislocation after tracheal intubation. Br. J. Anaesth. 2009 Sep 1; 103(3):452–455. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Sharma S, Bhardwaj V, Sharma S, et al.: Dexamethasone to decrease post-anesthesia sore throat (POST) and hoarseness-which is the most effective route: intravenous, topical, or nebulization? A prospective randomized trial. Ain-Shams J. Anesthes. 2021 Dec; 13(1): 1–7. Publisher Full Text
4. El-Boghdadly K, Bailey CR, Wiles MD: Postoperative sore throat: a systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2016 Jun; 71(6): 706–717. Publisher Full Text
5. Winkel E, Knudsen J: Effect on the incidence of postoperative sore throat of 1 percent cinchocaine jelly for endotracheal intubation. Anesth. Analg. 1971 Jan 1; 50(1): 92–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Saeki H, Morimoto Y, Yamashita A, et al.: Postoperative sore throat and intracuff pressure: comparison among endotracheal intubation, laryngeal mask airway and cuffed oropharyngeal airway. Masui. 1999 Dec 1; 48(12): 1328–1331. PubMed Abstract
7. Lee J, Park HP, Jeong MH, et al.: Combined intraoperative paracetamol and preoperative dexamethasone reduces postoperative sore throat: a prospective randomized study. J. Anesth. 2017 Dec; 31: 869–877. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Hu B, Bao R, Wang X, et al.: The size of endotracheal tube and sore throat after surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013 Oct 4; 8(10): e74467. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Chang JE, Kim H, Han SH, et al.: Effect of endotracheal tube cuff shape on postoperative sore throat after endotracheal intubation. Anesth. Analg. 2017 Oct 1; 125(4): 1240–1245. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Sato K, Tanaka M, Nishikawa T: Changes in intracuff pressure of endotracheal tubes permeable or resistant to nitrous oxide and incidence of postoperative sore throat. Masui. 2004 Jul 1; 53(7): 767–771. PubMed Abstract
11. Joe HB, Kim DH, Chae YJ, et al.: The effect of cuff pressure on postoperative sore throat after Cobra perilaryngeal airway. J. Anesth. 2012 Apr; 26: 225–229. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Fennessy BG, Mannion S, Kinsella JB, et al.: The benefits of hypopharyngeal packing in nasal surgery: a pilot study. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2011 Mar; 180: 181–183. Publisher Full Text
13. Karbasforushan A, Hemmatpoor B, Makhsosi BR, et al.: The effect of pharyngeal packing during nasal surgery on the incidence of post-operative nausea, vomiting, and sore throat. Iran J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2014 Oct; 26(77): 219–223. PubMed Abstract
14. Zhang W, Zhao G, Li L, et al.: Prophylactic administration of corticosteroids for preventing postoperative complications related to tracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials. Clin. Drug Investig. 2016 Apr; 36: 255–265. Publisher Full Text
15. Najafi A, Imani F, Makarem J, et al.: Postoperative sore throat after laryngoscopy with macintosh or glide scope video laryngoscope blade in normal airway patients. Anesthesiol. Pain Med. 2014 Feb; 3(1). Publisher Full Text
16. Ansari L, Bohluli B, Mahaseni H, et al.: The effect of endotracheal tube cuff pressure control on postextubation throat pain in orthognathic surgeries: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014 Feb 1; 52(2): 140–143. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Sun L, Guo R, Sun L: Dexamethasone for preventing postoperative sore throat: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2014 Dec; 183: 593–600. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Canbay O, Celebi N, Sahin A, et al.: Ketamine gargle for attenuating postoperative sore throat. Br. J. Anaesth. 2008 Apr 1; 100(4): 490–493. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Kadar MA: Assessment of the efficacy of dexamethasone, lignocaine or placebo in the prevention of post intubation sore throat. Int. J. Biomed. Res. 2015; 6(07): 493–503. Publisher Full Text
20. Chang JE, Min SW, Kim CS, et al.: The effect of benzydamine hydrochloride prophylaxis on postoperative sore throat and hoarseness after tracheal intubation using a double-lumen endobronchial tube: a randomized controlled trial. Can. J. Anaesth. 2015 Oct; 62: 1097–1103. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Teymourian H, Mohajerani SA, Farahbod A: Magnesium and ketamine gargle and postoperative sore throat. Anesth. Pain Med. 2015 Jun; 5(3): e22367. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
22. Jiang Y, Chen R, Xu S, et al.: The impact of prophylactic dexamethasone on postoperative sore throat: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Pain Res. 2018 Oct 18; 11:2463–2475. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Uztüre N, Menda F, Bilgen S, et al.: The effect of flurbiprofen on postoperative sore throat and hoarseness after LMA-ProSeal insertion: a randomised, clinical trial. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation. 2014 Jun; 42(3):123–127. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
24. Puthenveettil N, Kishore K, Paul J, et al.: Effect of cuff pressures on postoperative sore throat in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: an observational study. Anesth. Essays Res. 2018 Apr 1; 12(2):484–488. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
25. Mazzotta E, Soghomonyan S, Hu LQ: Postoperative sore throat: prophylaxis and treatment. Front. Pharmacol. 2023 Nov 23; 14:1284071. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Wang G, Qi Y, Wu L, et al.: Comparative efficacy of 6 topical pharmacological agents for preventive interventions of postoperative sore throat after tracheal intubation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Anesth. Analg. 2021 Jul; 133(1): 58–67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Villa E, Magnoni MS, Micheli D, et al.: A review of the use of fluticasone furoate since its launch. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2011 Sep 1; 12(13):2107–2117. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
28. Thompson MJ, Hayward G, Heneghan CJ, et al.: Corticosteroids for sore throat. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2010; 1. Publisher Full Text
29. Smarius BJ, Guillaume CH, Jonker G, et al.: The use of throat packs in pediatric cleft lip/palate surgery: a retrospective study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018 Dec; 22: 3053–3059. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. Tong D, Chung F, Wong D: Predictive factors in global and anesthesia satisfaction in ambulatory surgical patients. The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. 1997 Oct 1; 87(4):856–864. Publisher Full Text
31. Hassen Y, Nasser N, Abraha M: Magnitude and Factors Associated with post-operative Sore Throat Among Adult Surgical Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia at a Tertiary Care Institution, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J. Clin. Anesthes. Res. 2022; 3(1):12–18. Publisher Full Text
32. Bajwa SJ: Prevention of aspiration of blood with a unique pharyngeal packing method. Anesth. Essays Res. 2012 Jul; 6(2): 251–252. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
33. Mencke T, Echternach M, Kleinschmidt S, et al.: Laryngeal morbidity and quality of tracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial. The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. 2003 May 1; 98(5): 1049–1056. Publisher Full Text
34. Biro P, Seifert B, Pasch T: Complaints of sore throat after tracheal intubation: a prospective evaluation. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2005 Apr; 22(4): 307–311. Publisher Full Text
35. Lautenbacher S, Peters JH, Heesen M, et al.: Age changes in pain perception: a systematic-review and meta-analysis of age effects on pain and tolerance thresholds. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2017 Apr 1; 75: 104–113. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
36. Petrini L, Matthiesen ST, Arendt-Nielsen L: The effect of age and gender on pressure pain thresholds and suprathreshold stimuli. Perception. 2015 May; 44(5): 587–596. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Feine JS, Bushnell MC, Miron D, et al.: Sex differences in the perception of noxious heat stimuli. Pain. 1991 Mar 1; 44(3): 255–262. Publisher Full Text
38. Jaensson M, Gupta A, Nilsson U: Gender differences in sore throat and hoarseness following endotracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway: a prospective study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2014 Dec; 14(1): 1–8. Publisher Full Text
39. Jayes L, Haslam PL, Gratziou CG, et al.: SmokeHaz: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effects of smoking on respiratory health. Chest. 2016 Jul 1; 150(1): 164–179. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
40. Thomson NC: Asthma and smoking-induced airway disease without spirometric COPD. Eur. Respir. J. 2017 May 1; 49(5): 1602061. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
41. Lee JY, Sim WS, Kim ES, et al.: Incidence and risk factors of postoperative sore throat after endotracheal intubation in Korean patients. J. Int. Med. Res. 2017 Apr; 45(2): 744–752. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
42. Patil BO, Sonavdekar SR, Mathur R: A Relative Study on Laryngeal Mask Airway Lubrication with 0.005% Beclomethasone Cream v/a 2% Lidocaine.
43. Sultan SS, Fahmy NM, Hassan MI, et al.: Soaking oro-pharyngeal pack with triamcinolone acetonide lowers discomfort in functional endoscopic sinus surgeries. Rev. Chil. Anest. 2020; 49: 889–895. Publisher Full Text
44. Park SY, Lee SJ: Application of triamcinolone acetonide paste to the endotracheal tube reduces postoperative sore throat: a randomized controlled trial. Can. J. Anesth. 2011 May 1; 58(5): 436–442. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
45. Aqil M, Khan MU, Mansoor S, et al.: Incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat: a randomized comparison of Glidescope with Macintosh laryngoscope. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017 Dec; 17(1): 1–8. Publisher Full Text
46. Kanakalakshmi ST: Protocol. [Dataset]. figshare. 2023. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India

Arjun Talapatra
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Shaji Mathew
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization

Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi
Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Rama Rani
Roles: Project Administration, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 10 Jun 2024, 12:1352

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139742.2

version 1

Published: 17 Oct 2023, 12:1352

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139742.1

© 2024 Talapatra A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Talapatra A, Mathew S, Kanakalakshmi ST and Rani R. Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:1352 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.139742.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 10 Jun 2024

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 25 Oct 2024

Abdul Rahman Muthanna, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.166346.r325007

This manuscript is well-written in term of method and focuses primarily on statistical analysis. However, there is minor correction, please revise accordingly.

Abstract
Background: "through various interventions" include example of the interventions or be specific.
Methods: A total of respondents need to be included to each groups.
Include study duration in methods.
Include statistical analysis.
Results: the results lack numerical values. It should have both words
Conclusion: what is the recommendations.

Introduction
What is the limitations and recommendations from previous studies regarding the interventions. (Need to discuss).

Methods
Include sample size calculation.

Results
Ok

Discussion
Ok

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Medical Microbiology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 09 Feb 2024

Riniki Sarma, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, New Delhi, India

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.153042.r237023

This randomized controlled trial takes into account an innovative drug to find the outcome of sore throat and hoarseness of voice postoperatively in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. Fluticasone is a known treatment method used in rhinosinusitis due to its anti-inflammatory properties. Though not statistically significant, in view of the incidence of POST being lesser with fluticasone group, the findings from this study are encouraging.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: AIrway, resuscitation, Pain management

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 13 Apr 2024

Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi, Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

13 Apr 2024

Author Response

Riniki Sarma
This randomized controlled trial takes into account an innovative drug to find the outcome of sore throat and hoarseness of voice postoperatively in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. Fluticasone is ... Continue reading Riniki Sarma
This randomized controlled trial takes into account an innovative drug to find the outcome of sore throat and hoarseness of voice postoperatively in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. Fluticasone is a known treatment method used in rhinosinusitis due to its anti-inflammatory properties. Though not statistically significant, in view of the incidence of POST being lesser with fluticasone group, the findings from this study are encouraging.

Response
Many thanks for your comments madam.
Thank you for your motivating comments.
Riniki Sarma
This randomized controlled trial takes into account an innovative drug to find the outcome of sore throat and hoarseness of voice postoperatively in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. Fluticasone is a known treatment method used in rhinosinusitis due to its anti-inflammatory properties. Though not statistically significant, in view of the incidence of POST being lesser with fluticasone group, the findings from this study are encouraging.

Response
Many thanks for your comments madam.
Thank you for your motivating comments.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 13 Apr 2024

Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi, Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

13 Apr 2024

Author Response

Riniki Sarma
This randomized controlled trial takes into account an innovative drug to find the outcome of sore throat and hoarseness of voice postoperatively in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. Fluticasone is ... Continue reading Riniki Sarma
This randomized controlled trial takes into account an innovative drug to find the outcome of sore throat and hoarseness of voice postoperatively in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. Fluticasone is a known treatment method used in rhinosinusitis due to its anti-inflammatory properties. Though not statistically significant, in view of the incidence of POST being lesser with fluticasone group, the findings from this study are encouraging.

Response
Many thanks for your comments madam.
Thank you for your motivating comments.
Riniki Sarma
This randomized controlled trial takes into account an innovative drug to find the outcome of sore throat and hoarseness of voice postoperatively in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. Fluticasone is a known treatment method used in rhinosinusitis due to its anti-inflammatory properties. Though not statistically significant, in view of the incidence of POST being lesser with fluticasone group, the findings from this study are encouraging.

Response
Many thanks for your comments madam.
Thank you for your motivating comments.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 09 Feb 2024

Mathew George, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Kochi, India

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.153042.r217314

The study is well designed and executed. The background research is also commendable. If possible it would be better to continue patient enrolment to achieve the calculated sample size of 96 patients per group as it would possibly improve the power of the study and likely bring out a significant difference between the groups as there is a trend towards fluticasone decreasing the incidence of the primary outcome.

The paragraph on secondary outcome needs some correction as the number of patients with grade 2 soreness is not mentioned appropriately, or has been missed.

Altogether the paper is well designed and reasonably well written but is underpowered to reveal the true benefits if any for the treatment being studied.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Neuro anaesthesia, Paediatric Anaesthesia, Intraoperative evoked potential monitoring

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 13 Apr 2024

Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi, Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

13 Apr 2024

Author Response

Mathew George
Comment
The study is well designed and executed. The background research is also commendable. If possible it would be better to continue patient enrolment to achieve the calculated ... Continue reading Mathew George
Comment
The study is well designed and executed. The background research is also commendable. If possible it would be better to continue patient enrolment to achieve the calculated sample size of 96 patients per group as it would possibly improve the power of the study and likely bring out a significant difference between the groups as there is a trend towards fluticasone decreasing the incidence of the primary outcome.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We are continuing the patient enrollment as suggested so as to improve the power of our study and trying to find any significant differences between the groups.
Comment
The paragraph on secondary outcome needs some correction as the number of patients with grade 2 soreness is not mentioned appropriately, or has been missed.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We have made the necessary changes and highlighted the same.

Comment
Altogether the paper is well designed and reasonably well written but is underpowered to reveal the true benefits if any for the treatment being studied.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We agree with your suggestion and thus are continuing recruiting patients so as to improve the overall number and power of the study.
Mathew George
Comment
The study is well designed and executed. The background research is also commendable. If possible it would be better to continue patient enrolment to achieve the calculated sample size of 96 patients per group as it would possibly improve the power of the study and likely bring out a significant difference between the groups as there is a trend towards fluticasone decreasing the incidence of the primary outcome.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We are continuing the patient enrollment as suggested so as to improve the power of our study and trying to find any significant differences between the groups.
Comment
The paragraph on secondary outcome needs some correction as the number of patients with grade 2 soreness is not mentioned appropriately, or has been missed.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We have made the necessary changes and highlighted the same.

Comment
Altogether the paper is well designed and reasonably well written but is underpowered to reveal the true benefits if any for the treatment being studied.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We agree with your suggestion and thus are continuing recruiting patients so as to improve the overall number and power of the study.
Competing Interests: None Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 13 Apr 2024

Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi, Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

13 Apr 2024

Author Response

Mathew George
Comment
The study is well designed and executed. The background research is also commendable. If possible it would be better to continue patient enrolment to achieve the calculated ... Continue reading Mathew George
Comment
The study is well designed and executed. The background research is also commendable. If possible it would be better to continue patient enrolment to achieve the calculated sample size of 96 patients per group as it would possibly improve the power of the study and likely bring out a significant difference between the groups as there is a trend towards fluticasone decreasing the incidence of the primary outcome.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We are continuing the patient enrollment as suggested so as to improve the power of our study and trying to find any significant differences between the groups.
Comment
The paragraph on secondary outcome needs some correction as the number of patients with grade 2 soreness is not mentioned appropriately, or has been missed.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We have made the necessary changes and highlighted the same.

Comment
Altogether the paper is well designed and reasonably well written but is underpowered to reveal the true benefits if any for the treatment being studied.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We agree with your suggestion and thus are continuing recruiting patients so as to improve the overall number and power of the study.
Mathew George
Comment
The study is well designed and executed. The background research is also commendable. If possible it would be better to continue patient enrolment to achieve the calculated sample size of 96 patients per group as it would possibly improve the power of the study and likely bring out a significant difference between the groups as there is a trend towards fluticasone decreasing the incidence of the primary outcome.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We are continuing the patient enrollment as suggested so as to improve the power of our study and trying to find any significant differences between the groups.
Comment
The paragraph on secondary outcome needs some correction as the number of patients with grade 2 soreness is not mentioned appropriately, or has been missed.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We have made the necessary changes and highlighted the same.

Comment
Altogether the paper is well designed and reasonably well written but is underpowered to reveal the true benefits if any for the treatment being studied.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We agree with your suggestion and thus are continuing recruiting patients so as to improve the overall number and power of the study.
Competing Interests: None Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 07 Feb 2024

Ajinkya Pawar, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.153042.r241363

The introduction of the manuscript titled "Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial" provides a comprehensive overview of the background, rationale, and objectives of the study. Overall, the introduction is well-structured and informative. However, here are some comments on potential flaws or areas for improvement:
The introduction mentions the incidence of POST ranging from 12.1% to 70% and hoarseness from 4–43%. However, it would be helpful to provide the sources of these statistics to lend credibility to the claims. This is important for readers to evaluate the reliability and generalizability of the reported incidence rates.
The statement that POST is the eighth worst possible post-anesthesia effect is intriguing, but the source or reference for this specific ranking is not provided.
While the introduction mentions that throat packs have advantages, it briefly touches on the drawbacks, with POST being a major concern. Expanding on the drawbacks and potential complications associated with throat packs could provide a more balanced view and help readers understand the context for investigating alternative interventions.
The introduction discusses various interventions to reduce the frequency of POST, such as compact tracheal tubes, video laryngoscopy, cuff pressure control, steroids, NSAIDs, and different gargles. It might be beneficial to briefly mention the effectiveness or limitations of these interventions.
The introduction mentions a thorough search of the literature showing no evidence of studies involving the use of throat packs soaked with steroid sprays. While this highlights the novelty of the study, it would be helpful to elaborate on why this gap exists and why it is essential to address it.
The introduction mentions that fluticasone furoate is typically available as a nasal spray with no reported adverse effects. While this information is relevant, it might be helpful to briefly explain why fluticasone furoate is being considered for impregnating throat packs, especially in comparison to other available steroids or anti-inflammatory agents.
The specific objectives of the study are outlined at the end of the introduction, but the wording could be refined for clarity. Consider rephrasing to clearly state each objective and its significance in the context of the study.

Discussion
The section provides a thorough analysis of the study results and offers valuable insights. However, there are a few areas that could be addressed for clarity and completeness:
While the discussion emphasizes the significance of reducing POST for postoperative patient comfort, satisfaction, and overall hospital stay, it would be beneficial to delve deeper into the specific impact of POST on patients' experiences. Providing anecdotes or examples could help readers better understand the practical implications of mitigating POST.
The discussion briefly mentions the use of steroids for their anti-inflammatory effect in preventing POST. It would be helpful to expand on the rationale behind choosing fluticasone furoate specifically, considering its anti-inflammatory properties and its potential advantages over other steroids. This could strengthen the justification for the study intervention.
The discussion compares the results of the current study with findings from previous research, particularly the study by Park SY et al (Ref1). However, it would be beneficial to discuss any differences in study design, patient populations, or interventions that may contribute to variations in results.
The limitations section provides essential information about the constraints of the study, such as the single-center design and relatively small sample size. However, there is a mention of not analyzing certain aspects related to endotracheal tubes, such as the number of attempts, time for insertion, and cuff pressure.
The discussion touches upon the small sample size as a potential reason for the lack of statistical significance in certain outcomes. It would be beneficial to discuss the implications of the study's limitations on the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, addressing the types of patients or surgeries to which the results may be more applicable could enhance the discussion.
Considering the study's findings and limitations, it would be helpful to suggest potential avenues for future research. This could include recommendations for larger multi-center trials, exploring different patient populations, or investigating variations in the intervention protocol.
Ensure consistency in reporting findings. For instance, the discussion mentions a lower incidence and severity of POST in the fluticasone group, but then notes that the results were not statistically significant. Clarify whether these observed differences are clinically meaningful even if not statistically significant.
Acknowledge the strengths of the study, such as the randomized controlled trial design and the use of a specific intervention that has not been extensively studied before. Recognizing these strengths reinforces the scientific rigor of the research.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Park SY, Kim SH, Lee SJ, Chae WS, et al.: Application of triamcinolone acetonide paste to the endotracheal tube reduces postoperative sore throat: a randomized controlled trial.Can J Anaesth. 2011; 58 (5): 436-42 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Clinical Trial

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 21 Jun 2024

Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi, Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

21 Jun 2024

Author Response

The introduction of the manuscript titled "Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial" provides a comprehensive overview of the ... Continue reading The introduction of the manuscript titled "Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial" provides a comprehensive overview of the background, rationale, and objectives of the study. Overall, the introduction is well-structured and informative.
However, here are some comments on potential flaws or areas for improvement:
Comment
The introduction mentions the incidence of POST ranging from 12.1% to 70% and hoarseness from 4–43%. However, it would be helpful to provide the sources of these statistics to lend credibility to the claims. This is important for readers to evaluate the reliability and generalizability of the reported incidence rates.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the prevalence of POST and hoarseness of voice and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The statement that POST is the eighth worst possible post-anesthesia effect is intriguing, but the source or reference for this specific ranking is not provided.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the statement and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
While the introduction mentions that throat packs have advantages, it briefly touches on the drawbacks, with POST being a major concern. Expanding on the drawbacks and potential complications associated with throat packs could provide a more balanced view and help readers understand the context for investigating alternative interventions.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added supporting study and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction discusses various interventions to reduce the frequency of POST, such as compact tracheal tubes, video laryngoscopy, cuff pressure control, steroids, NSAIDs, and different gargles. It might be beneficial to briefly mention the effectiveness or limitations of these interventions.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added supporting studies and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction mentions a thorough search of the literature showing no evidence of studies involving the use of throat packs soaked with steroid sprays. While this highlights the novelty of the study, it would be helpful to elaborate on why this gap exists and why it is essential to address it.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the supporting study and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction mentions that fluticasone furoate is typically available as a nasal spray with no reported adverse effects. While this information is relevant, it might be helpful to briefly explain why fluticasone furoate is being considered for impregnating throat packs, especially compared to other available steroids or anti-inflammatory agents.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the supporting study and have mentioned it in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The specific objectives of the study are outlined at the end of the introduction, but the wording could be refined for clarity. Consider rephrasing to clearly state each objective and its significance in the context of the study.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.

Discussion
The section provides a thorough analysis of the study results and offers valuable insights.
However, there are a few areas that could be addressed for clarity and completeness:
Comment
While the discussion emphasizes the significance of reducing POST for postoperative patient comfort, satisfaction, and overall hospital stay, it would be beneficial to delve deeper into the specific impact of POST on patients' experiences. Providing anecdotes or examples could help readers better understand the practical implications of mitigating POST.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the studies and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.

Comment
The discussion briefly mentions the use of steroids for their anti-inflammatory effect in preventing POST. It would be helpful to expand on the rationale behind choosing fluticasone furoate specifically, considering its anti-inflammatory properties and its potential advantages over other steroids. This could strengthen the justification for the study intervention.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The discussion compares the results of the current study with findings from previous research, particularly the study by Park SY et al (Ref1). However, it would be beneficial to discuss any differences in study design, patient populations, or interventions that may contribute to variations in results.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The limitations section provides essential information about the constraints of the study, such as the single-center design and relatively small sample size. However, there is a mention of not analyzing certain aspects related to endotracheal tubes, such as the number of attempts, time for insertion, and cuff pressure. The discussion touches upon the small sample size as a potential reason for the lack of statistical significance in certain outcomes. It would be beneficial to discuss the implications of the study's limitations on the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, addressing the types of patients or surgeries to which the results may be more applicable could enhance the discussion.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
Considering the study's findings and limitations, it would be helpful to suggest potential avenues for future research. This could include recommendations for larger multi-centre trials, exploring different patient populations, or investigating variations in the intervention protocol.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript
Comment
Ensure consistency in reporting findings. For instance, the discussion mentions a lower incidence and severity of POST in the fluticasone group, but then notes that the results were not statistically significant. Clarify whether these observed differences are clinically meaningful even if not statistically significant.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. Although the observed differences were clinically meaningful they were not statistically significant as mentioned in our study.
Comment
Acknowledge the strengths of the study, such as the randomized controlled trial design and the use of a specific intervention that has not been extensively studied before. Recognizing these strengths reinforces the scientific rigor of the research.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript
The introduction of the manuscript titled "Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial" provides a comprehensive overview of the background, rationale, and objectives of the study. Overall, the introduction is well-structured and informative.
However, here are some comments on potential flaws or areas for improvement:
Comment
The introduction mentions the incidence of POST ranging from 12.1% to 70% and hoarseness from 4–43%. However, it would be helpful to provide the sources of these statistics to lend credibility to the claims. This is important for readers to evaluate the reliability and generalizability of the reported incidence rates.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the prevalence of POST and hoarseness of voice and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The statement that POST is the eighth worst possible post-anesthesia effect is intriguing, but the source or reference for this specific ranking is not provided.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the statement and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
While the introduction mentions that throat packs have advantages, it briefly touches on the drawbacks, with POST being a major concern. Expanding on the drawbacks and potential complications associated with throat packs could provide a more balanced view and help readers understand the context for investigating alternative interventions.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added supporting study and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction discusses various interventions to reduce the frequency of POST, such as compact tracheal tubes, video laryngoscopy, cuff pressure control, steroids, NSAIDs, and different gargles. It might be beneficial to briefly mention the effectiveness or limitations of these interventions.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added supporting studies and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction mentions a thorough search of the literature showing no evidence of studies involving the use of throat packs soaked with steroid sprays. While this highlights the novelty of the study, it would be helpful to elaborate on why this gap exists and why it is essential to address it.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the supporting study and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction mentions that fluticasone furoate is typically available as a nasal spray with no reported adverse effects. While this information is relevant, it might be helpful to briefly explain why fluticasone furoate is being considered for impregnating throat packs, especially compared to other available steroids or anti-inflammatory agents.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the supporting study and have mentioned it in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The specific objectives of the study are outlined at the end of the introduction, but the wording could be refined for clarity. Consider rephrasing to clearly state each objective and its significance in the context of the study.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.

Discussion
The section provides a thorough analysis of the study results and offers valuable insights.
However, there are a few areas that could be addressed for clarity and completeness:
Comment
While the discussion emphasizes the significance of reducing POST for postoperative patient comfort, satisfaction, and overall hospital stay, it would be beneficial to delve deeper into the specific impact of POST on patients' experiences. Providing anecdotes or examples could help readers better understand the practical implications of mitigating POST.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the studies and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.

Comment
The discussion briefly mentions the use of steroids for their anti-inflammatory effect in preventing POST. It would be helpful to expand on the rationale behind choosing fluticasone furoate specifically, considering its anti-inflammatory properties and its potential advantages over other steroids. This could strengthen the justification for the study intervention.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The discussion compares the results of the current study with findings from previous research, particularly the study by Park SY et al (Ref1). However, it would be beneficial to discuss any differences in study design, patient populations, or interventions that may contribute to variations in results.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The limitations section provides essential information about the constraints of the study, such as the single-center design and relatively small sample size. However, there is a mention of not analyzing certain aspects related to endotracheal tubes, such as the number of attempts, time for insertion, and cuff pressure. The discussion touches upon the small sample size as a potential reason for the lack of statistical significance in certain outcomes. It would be beneficial to discuss the implications of the study's limitations on the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, addressing the types of patients or surgeries to which the results may be more applicable could enhance the discussion.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
Considering the study's findings and limitations, it would be helpful to suggest potential avenues for future research. This could include recommendations for larger multi-centre trials, exploring different patient populations, or investigating variations in the intervention protocol.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript
Comment
Ensure consistency in reporting findings. For instance, the discussion mentions a lower incidence and severity of POST in the fluticasone group, but then notes that the results were not statistically significant. Clarify whether these observed differences are clinically meaningful even if not statistically significant.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. Although the observed differences were clinically meaningful they were not statistically significant as mentioned in our study.
Comment
Acknowledge the strengths of the study, such as the randomized controlled trial design and the use of a specific intervention that has not been extensively studied before. Recognizing these strengths reinforces the scientific rigor of the research.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 21 Jun 2024

Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi, Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

21 Jun 2024

Author Response

The introduction of the manuscript titled "Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial" provides a comprehensive overview of the ... Continue reading The introduction of the manuscript titled "Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial" provides a comprehensive overview of the background, rationale, and objectives of the study. Overall, the introduction is well-structured and informative.
However, here are some comments on potential flaws or areas for improvement:
Comment
The introduction mentions the incidence of POST ranging from 12.1% to 70% and hoarseness from 4–43%. However, it would be helpful to provide the sources of these statistics to lend credibility to the claims. This is important for readers to evaluate the reliability and generalizability of the reported incidence rates.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the prevalence of POST and hoarseness of voice and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The statement that POST is the eighth worst possible post-anesthesia effect is intriguing, but the source or reference for this specific ranking is not provided.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the statement and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
While the introduction mentions that throat packs have advantages, it briefly touches on the drawbacks, with POST being a major concern. Expanding on the drawbacks and potential complications associated with throat packs could provide a more balanced view and help readers understand the context for investigating alternative interventions.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added supporting study and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction discusses various interventions to reduce the frequency of POST, such as compact tracheal tubes, video laryngoscopy, cuff pressure control, steroids, NSAIDs, and different gargles. It might be beneficial to briefly mention the effectiveness or limitations of these interventions.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added supporting studies and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction mentions a thorough search of the literature showing no evidence of studies involving the use of throat packs soaked with steroid sprays. While this highlights the novelty of the study, it would be helpful to elaborate on why this gap exists and why it is essential to address it.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the supporting study and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction mentions that fluticasone furoate is typically available as a nasal spray with no reported adverse effects. While this information is relevant, it might be helpful to briefly explain why fluticasone furoate is being considered for impregnating throat packs, especially compared to other available steroids or anti-inflammatory agents.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the supporting study and have mentioned it in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The specific objectives of the study are outlined at the end of the introduction, but the wording could be refined for clarity. Consider rephrasing to clearly state each objective and its significance in the context of the study.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.

Discussion
The section provides a thorough analysis of the study results and offers valuable insights.
However, there are a few areas that could be addressed for clarity and completeness:
Comment
While the discussion emphasizes the significance of reducing POST for postoperative patient comfort, satisfaction, and overall hospital stay, it would be beneficial to delve deeper into the specific impact of POST on patients' experiences. Providing anecdotes or examples could help readers better understand the practical implications of mitigating POST.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the studies and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.

Comment
The discussion briefly mentions the use of steroids for their anti-inflammatory effect in preventing POST. It would be helpful to expand on the rationale behind choosing fluticasone furoate specifically, considering its anti-inflammatory properties and its potential advantages over other steroids. This could strengthen the justification for the study intervention.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The discussion compares the results of the current study with findings from previous research, particularly the study by Park SY et al (Ref1). However, it would be beneficial to discuss any differences in study design, patient populations, or interventions that may contribute to variations in results.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The limitations section provides essential information about the constraints of the study, such as the single-center design and relatively small sample size. However, there is a mention of not analyzing certain aspects related to endotracheal tubes, such as the number of attempts, time for insertion, and cuff pressure. The discussion touches upon the small sample size as a potential reason for the lack of statistical significance in certain outcomes. It would be beneficial to discuss the implications of the study's limitations on the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, addressing the types of patients or surgeries to which the results may be more applicable could enhance the discussion.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
Considering the study's findings and limitations, it would be helpful to suggest potential avenues for future research. This could include recommendations for larger multi-centre trials, exploring different patient populations, or investigating variations in the intervention protocol.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript
Comment
Ensure consistency in reporting findings. For instance, the discussion mentions a lower incidence and severity of POST in the fluticasone group, but then notes that the results were not statistically significant. Clarify whether these observed differences are clinically meaningful even if not statistically significant.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. Although the observed differences were clinically meaningful they were not statistically significant as mentioned in our study.
Comment
Acknowledge the strengths of the study, such as the randomized controlled trial design and the use of a specific intervention that has not been extensively studied before. Recognizing these strengths reinforces the scientific rigor of the research.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript
The introduction of the manuscript titled "Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial" provides a comprehensive overview of the background, rationale, and objectives of the study. Overall, the introduction is well-structured and informative.
However, here are some comments on potential flaws or areas for improvement:
Comment
The introduction mentions the incidence of POST ranging from 12.1% to 70% and hoarseness from 4–43%. However, it would be helpful to provide the sources of these statistics to lend credibility to the claims. This is important for readers to evaluate the reliability and generalizability of the reported incidence rates.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the prevalence of POST and hoarseness of voice and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The statement that POST is the eighth worst possible post-anesthesia effect is intriguing, but the source or reference for this specific ranking is not provided.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the statement and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
While the introduction mentions that throat packs have advantages, it briefly touches on the drawbacks, with POST being a major concern. Expanding on the drawbacks and potential complications associated with throat packs could provide a more balanced view and help readers understand the context for investigating alternative interventions.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added supporting study and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction discusses various interventions to reduce the frequency of POST, such as compact tracheal tubes, video laryngoscopy, cuff pressure control, steroids, NSAIDs, and different gargles. It might be beneficial to briefly mention the effectiveness or limitations of these interventions.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added supporting studies and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction mentions a thorough search of the literature showing no evidence of studies involving the use of throat packs soaked with steroid sprays. While this highlights the novelty of the study, it would be helpful to elaborate on why this gap exists and why it is essential to address it.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the supporting study and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction mentions that fluticasone furoate is typically available as a nasal spray with no reported adverse effects. While this information is relevant, it might be helpful to briefly explain why fluticasone furoate is being considered for impregnating throat packs, especially compared to other available steroids or anti-inflammatory agents.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the supporting study and have mentioned it in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The specific objectives of the study are outlined at the end of the introduction, but the wording could be refined for clarity. Consider rephrasing to clearly state each objective and its significance in the context of the study.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.

Discussion
The section provides a thorough analysis of the study results and offers valuable insights.
However, there are a few areas that could be addressed for clarity and completeness:
Comment
While the discussion emphasizes the significance of reducing POST for postoperative patient comfort, satisfaction, and overall hospital stay, it would be beneficial to delve deeper into the specific impact of POST on patients' experiences. Providing anecdotes or examples could help readers better understand the practical implications of mitigating POST.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the studies and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.

Comment
The discussion briefly mentions the use of steroids for their anti-inflammatory effect in preventing POST. It would be helpful to expand on the rationale behind choosing fluticasone furoate specifically, considering its anti-inflammatory properties and its potential advantages over other steroids. This could strengthen the justification for the study intervention.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The discussion compares the results of the current study with findings from previous research, particularly the study by Park SY et al (Ref1). However, it would be beneficial to discuss any differences in study design, patient populations, or interventions that may contribute to variations in results.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The limitations section provides essential information about the constraints of the study, such as the single-center design and relatively small sample size. However, there is a mention of not analyzing certain aspects related to endotracheal tubes, such as the number of attempts, time for insertion, and cuff pressure. The discussion touches upon the small sample size as a potential reason for the lack of statistical significance in certain outcomes. It would be beneficial to discuss the implications of the study's limitations on the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, addressing the types of patients or surgeries to which the results may be more applicable could enhance the discussion.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
Considering the study's findings and limitations, it would be helpful to suggest potential avenues for future research. This could include recommendations for larger multi-centre trials, exploring different patient populations, or investigating variations in the intervention protocol.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript
Comment
Ensure consistency in reporting findings. For instance, the discussion mentions a lower incidence and severity of POST in the fluticasone group, but then notes that the results were not statistically significant. Clarify whether these observed differences are clinically meaningful even if not statistically significant.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. Although the observed differences were clinically meaningful they were not statistically significant as mentioned in our study.
Comment
Acknowledge the strengths of the study, such as the randomized controlled trial design and the use of a specific intervention that has not been extensively studied before. Recognizing these strengths reinforces the scientific rigor of the research.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Oct 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3	4
Version 2 (revision) 10 Jun 24				read
Version 1 17 Oct 23	read	read	read

Ajinkya Pawar, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, India
Mathew George, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Kochi, India
Riniki Sarma, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India
Abdul Rahman Muthanna, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

3 Views

25 Oct 2024 | for Version 2

Abdul Rahman Muthanna, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

3 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Medical Microbiology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

14 Views

09 Feb 2024 | for Version 1

Riniki Sarma, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, New Delhi, India

14 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

AIrway, resuscitation, Pain management

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

13 Apr 2024

Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi, Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

Riniki Sarma
This randomized controlled trial takes into account an innovative drug to find the outcome of sore throat and hoarseness of voice postoperatively in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation. Fluticasone is a known treatment method used in rhinosinusitis due to its anti-inflammatory properties. Though not statistically significant, in view of the incidence of POST being lesser with fluticasone group, the findings from this study are encouraging.

Response
Many thanks for your comments madam.
Thank you for your motivating comments.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

11 Views

09 Feb 2024 | for Version 1

Mathew George, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Kochi, India

11 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Neuro anaesthesia, Paediatric Anaesthesia, Intraoperative evoked potential monitoring

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

13 Apr 2024

Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi, Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

Mathew George
Comment
The study is well designed and executed. The background research is also commendable. If possible it would be better to continue patient enrolment to achieve the calculated sample size of 96 patients per group as it would possibly improve the power of the study and likely bring out a significant difference between the groups as there is a trend towards fluticasone decreasing the incidence of the primary outcome.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We are continuing the patient enrollment as suggested so as to improve the power of our study and trying to find any significant differences between the groups.
Comment
The paragraph on secondary outcome needs some correction as the number of patients with grade 2 soreness is not mentioned appropriately, or has been missed.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We have made the necessary changes and highlighted the same.

Comment
Altogether the paper is well designed and reasonably well written but is underpowered to reveal the true benefits if any for the treatment being studied.
Response
Many thanks for your comments. We agree with your suggestion and thus are continuing recruiting patients so as to improve the overall number and power of the study.

View more View less

Competing Interests

None

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

07 Feb 2024 | for Version 1

Ajinkya Pawar, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

13 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Clinical Trial

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

21 Jun 2024

Sushma Thimmaiah Kanakalakshmi, Department of Anaesthesiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

The introduction of the manuscript titled "Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial" provides a comprehensive overview of the background, rationale, and objectives of the study. Overall, the introduction is well-structured and informative.
However, here are some comments on potential flaws or areas for improvement:
Comment
The introduction mentions the incidence of POST ranging from 12.1% to 70% and hoarseness from 4–43%. However, it would be helpful to provide the sources of these statistics to lend credibility to the claims. This is important for readers to evaluate the reliability and generalizability of the reported incidence rates.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the prevalence of POST and hoarseness of voice and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The statement that POST is the eighth worst possible post-anesthesia effect is intriguing, but the source or reference for this specific ranking is not provided.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the statement and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
While the introduction mentions that throat packs have advantages, it briefly touches on the drawbacks, with POST being a major concern. Expanding on the drawbacks and potential complications associated with throat packs could provide a more balanced view and help readers understand the context for investigating alternative interventions.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added supporting study and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction discusses various interventions to reduce the frequency of POST, such as compact tracheal tubes, video laryngoscopy, cuff pressure control, steroids, NSAIDs, and different gargles. It might be beneficial to briefly mention the effectiveness or limitations of these interventions.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added supporting studies and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction mentions a thorough search of the literature showing no evidence of studies involving the use of throat packs soaked with steroid sprays. While this highlights the novelty of the study, it would be helpful to elaborate on why this gap exists and why it is essential to address it.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the supporting study and have mentioned in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The introduction mentions that fluticasone furoate is typically available as a nasal spray with no reported adverse effects. While this information is relevant, it might be helpful to briefly explain why fluticasone furoate is being considered for impregnating throat packs, especially compared to other available steroids or anti-inflammatory agents.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the supporting study and have mentioned it in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The specific objectives of the study are outlined at the end of the introduction, but the wording could be refined for clarity. Consider rephrasing to clearly state each objective and its significance in the context of the study.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.

Discussion
The section provides a thorough analysis of the study results and offers valuable insights.
However, there are a few areas that could be addressed for clarity and completeness:
Comment
While the discussion emphasizes the significance of reducing POST for postoperative patient comfort, satisfaction, and overall hospital stay, it would be beneficial to delve deeper into the specific impact of POST on patients' experiences. Providing anecdotes or examples could help readers better understand the practical implications of mitigating POST.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have added the studies and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.

Comment
The discussion briefly mentions the use of steroids for their anti-inflammatory effect in preventing POST. It would be helpful to expand on the rationale behind choosing fluticasone furoate specifically, considering its anti-inflammatory properties and its potential advantages over other steroids. This could strengthen the justification for the study intervention.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The discussion compares the results of the current study with findings from previous research, particularly the study by Park SY et al (Ref1). However, it would be beneficial to discuss any differences in study design, patient populations, or interventions that may contribute to variations in results.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
The limitations section provides essential information about the constraints of the study, such as the single-center design and relatively small sample size. However, there is a mention of not analyzing certain aspects related to endotracheal tubes, such as the number of attempts, time for insertion, and cuff pressure. The discussion touches upon the small sample size as a potential reason for the lack of statistical significance in certain outcomes. It would be beneficial to discuss the implications of the study's limitations on the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, addressing the types of patients or surgeries to which the results may be more applicable could enhance the discussion.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript.
Comment
Considering the study's findings and limitations, it would be helpful to suggest potential avenues for future research. This could include recommendations for larger multi-centre trials, exploring different patient populations, or investigating variations in the intervention protocol.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript
Comment
Ensure consistency in reporting findings. For instance, the discussion mentions a lower incidence and severity of POST in the fluticasone group, but then notes that the results were not statistically significant. Clarify whether these observed differences are clinically meaningful even if not statistically significant.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. Although the observed differences were clinically meaningful they were not statistically significant as mentioned in our study.
Comment
Acknowledge the strengths of the study, such as the randomized controlled trial design and the use of a specific intervention that has not been extensively studied before. Recognizing these strengths reinforces the scientific rigor of the research.
Response
Many thanks for your suggestion. We have made the necessary changes and have mentioned them in the revised manuscript

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Tanaka Y, Nakayama T, Nishimori M, et al.: Lidocaine for preventing postoperative sore throat. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015; 7. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Yamanaka H, Hayashi Y, Watanabe Y, et al.: Prolonged hoarseness and arytenoid cartilage dislocation after tracheal intubation. Br. J. Anaesth. 2009 Sep 1; 103(3):452–455. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Sharma S, Bhardwaj V, Sharma S, et al.: Dexamethasone to decrease post-anesthesia sore throat (POST) and hoarseness-which is the most effective route: intravenous, topical, or nebulization? A prospective randomized trial. Ain-Shams J. Anesthes. 2021 Dec; 13(1): 1–7. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. El-Boghdadly K, Bailey CR, Wiles MD: Postoperative sore throat: a systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2016 Jun; 71(6): 706–717. Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Winkel E, Knudsen J: Effect on the incidence of postoperative sore throat of 1 percent cinchocaine jelly for endotracheal intubation. Anesth. Analg. 1971 Jan 1; 50(1): 92–94. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Saeki H, Morimoto Y, Yamashita A, et al.: Postoperative sore throat and intracuff pressure: comparison among endotracheal intubation, laryngeal mask airway and cuffed oropharyngeal airway. Masui. 1999 Dec 1; 48(12): 1328–1331. PubMed Abstract

[7] 7. Lee J, Park HP, Jeong MH, et al.: Combined intraoperative paracetamol and preoperative dexamethasone reduces postoperative sore throat: a prospective randomized study. J. Anesth. 2017 Dec; 31: 869–877. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Hu B, Bao R, Wang X, et al.: The size of endotracheal tube and sore throat after surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013 Oct 4; 8(10): e74467. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] 9. Chang JE, Kim H, Han SH, et al.: Effect of endotracheal tube cuff shape on postoperative sore throat after endotracheal intubation. Anesth. Analg. 2017 Oct 1; 125(4): 1240–1245. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Sato K, Tanaka M, Nishikawa T: Changes in intracuff pressure of endotracheal tubes permeable or resistant to nitrous oxide and incidence of postoperative sore throat. Masui. 2004 Jul 1; 53(7): 767–771. PubMed Abstract

[11] 11. Joe HB, Kim DH, Chae YJ, et al.: The effect of cuff pressure on postoperative sore throat after Cobra perilaryngeal airway. J. Anesth. 2012 Apr; 26: 225–229. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Fennessy BG, Mannion S, Kinsella JB, et al.: The benefits of hypopharyngeal packing in nasal surgery: a pilot study. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2011 Mar; 180: 181–183. Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Karbasforushan A, Hemmatpoor B, Makhsosi BR, et al.: The effect of pharyngeal packing during nasal surgery on the incidence of post-operative nausea, vomiting, and sore throat. Iran J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2014 Oct; 26(77): 219–223. PubMed Abstract

[14] 14. Zhang W, Zhao G, Li L, et al.: Prophylactic administration of corticosteroids for preventing postoperative complications related to tracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials. Clin. Drug Investig. 2016 Apr; 36: 255–265. Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Najafi A, Imani F, Makarem J, et al.: Postoperative sore throat after laryngoscopy with macintosh or glide scope video laryngoscope blade in normal airway patients. Anesthesiol. Pain Med. 2014 Feb; 3(1). Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Ansari L, Bohluli B, Mahaseni H, et al.: The effect of endotracheal tube cuff pressure control on postextubation throat pain in orthognathic surgeries: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014 Feb 1; 52(2): 140–143. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Sun L, Guo R, Sun L: Dexamethasone for preventing postoperative sore throat: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2014 Dec; 183: 593–600. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Canbay O, Celebi N, Sahin A, et al.: Ketamine gargle for attenuating postoperative sore throat. Br. J. Anaesth. 2008 Apr 1; 100(4): 490–493. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Kadar MA: Assessment of the efficacy of dexamethasone, lignocaine or placebo in the prevention of post intubation sore throat. Int. J. Biomed. Res. 2015; 6(07): 493–503. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Chang JE, Min SW, Kim CS, et al.: The effect of benzydamine hydrochloride prophylaxis on postoperative sore throat and hoarseness after tracheal intubation using a double-lumen endobronchial tube: a randomized controlled trial. Can. J. Anaesth. 2015 Oct; 62: 1097–1103. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Teymourian H, Mohajerani SA, Farahbod A: Magnesium and ketamine gargle and postoperative sore throat. Anesth. Pain Med. 2015 Jun; 5(3): e22367. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] 22. Jiang Y, Chen R, Xu S, et al.: The impact of prophylactic dexamethasone on postoperative sore throat: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Pain Res. 2018 Oct 18; 11:2463–2475. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. Uztüre N, Menda F, Bilgen S, et al.: The effect of flurbiprofen on postoperative sore throat and hoarseness after LMA-ProSeal insertion: a randomised, clinical trial. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation. 2014 Jun; 42(3):123–127. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] 24. Puthenveettil N, Kishore K, Paul J, et al.: Effect of cuff pressures on postoperative sore throat in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: an observational study. Anesth. Essays Res. 2018 Apr 1; 12(2):484–488. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] 25. Mazzotta E, Soghomonyan S, Hu LQ: Postoperative sore throat: prophylaxis and treatment. Front. Pharmacol. 2023 Nov 23; 14:1284071. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Wang G, Qi Y, Wu L, et al.: Comparative efficacy of 6 topical pharmacological agents for preventive interventions of postoperative sore throat after tracheal intubation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Anesth. Analg. 2021 Jul; 133(1): 58–67. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Villa E, Magnoni MS, Micheli D, et al.: A review of the use of fluticasone furoate since its launch. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2011 Sep 1; 12(13):2107–2117. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Thompson MJ, Hayward G, Heneghan CJ, et al.: Corticosteroids for sore throat. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2010; 1. Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Smarius BJ, Guillaume CH, Jonker G, et al.: The use of throat packs in pediatric cleft lip/palate surgery: a retrospective study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018 Dec; 22: 3053–3059. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Tong D, Chung F, Wong D: Predictive factors in global and anesthesia satisfaction in ambulatory surgical patients. The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. 1997 Oct 1; 87(4):856–864. Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Hassen Y, Nasser N, Abraha M: Magnitude and Factors Associated with post-operative Sore Throat Among Adult Surgical Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia at a Tertiary Care Institution, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J. Clin. Anesthes. Res. 2022; 3(1):12–18. Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Bajwa SJ: Prevention of aspiration of blood with a unique pharyngeal packing method. Anesth. Essays Res. 2012 Jul; 6(2): 251–252. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[33] 33. Mencke T, Echternach M, Kleinschmidt S, et al.: Laryngeal morbidity and quality of tracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial. The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists. 2003 May 1; 98(5): 1049–1056. Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Biro P, Seifert B, Pasch T: Complaints of sore throat after tracheal intubation: a prospective evaluation. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2005 Apr; 22(4): 307–311. Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Lautenbacher S, Peters JH, Heesen M, et al.: Age changes in pain perception: a systematic-review and meta-analysis of age effects on pain and tolerance thresholds. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2017 Apr 1; 75: 104–113. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Petrini L, Matthiesen ST, Arendt-Nielsen L: The effect of age and gender on pressure pain thresholds and suprathreshold stimuli. Perception. 2015 May; 44(5): 587–596. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Feine JS, Bushnell MC, Miron D, et al.: Sex differences in the perception of noxious heat stimuli. Pain. 1991 Mar 1; 44(3): 255–262. Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Jaensson M, Gupta A, Nilsson U: Gender differences in sore throat and hoarseness following endotracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway: a prospective study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2014 Dec; 14(1): 1–8. Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. Jayes L, Haslam PL, Gratziou CG, et al.: SmokeHaz: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effects of smoking on respiratory health. Chest. 2016 Jul 1; 150(1): 164–179. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Thomson NC: Asthma and smoking-induced airway disease without spirometric COPD. Eur. Respir. J. 2017 May 1; 49(5): 1602061. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Lee JY, Sim WS, Kim ES, et al.: Incidence and risk factors of postoperative sore throat after endotracheal intubation in Korean patients. J. Int. Med. Res. 2017 Apr; 45(2): 744–752. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[42] 42. Patil BO, Sonavdekar SR, Mathur R: A Relative Study on Laryngeal Mask Airway Lubrication with 0.005% Beclomethasone Cream v/a 2% Lidocaine.

[43] 43. Sultan SS, Fahmy NM, Hassan MI, et al.: Soaking oro-pharyngeal pack with triamcinolone acetonide lowers discomfort in functional endoscopic sinus surgeries. Rev. Chil. Anest. 2020; 49: 889–895. Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Park SY, Lee SJ: Application of triamcinolone acetonide paste to the endotracheal tube reduces postoperative sore throat: a randomized controlled trial. Can. J. Anesth. 2011 May 1; 58(5): 436–442. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[45] 45. Aqil M, Khan MU, Mansoor S, et al.: Incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat: a randomized comparison of Glidescope with Macintosh laryngoscope. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017 Dec; 17(1): 1–8. Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Kanakalakshmi ST: Protocol. [Dataset]. figshare. 2023. Publisher Full Text

Effect of fluticasone-impregnated throat packs on postoperative sore throat (POST) and hoarseness of voice: A randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Registration

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Methods

Ethical approval

Trial design

Participants

Interventions

Parameters assessed

Postoperative assessment

Outcomes

Blinding

Statistical analysis

Results

Figure 1. CONSORT diagram.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics.

Recruitment

Primary outcome

Table 2. Primary outcomes.

Figure 2. Incidence of POST.

Figure 3. Incidence of postoperative hoarseness of voice.

Secondary outcomes

Table 3. Secondary outcomes.

Table 4. Patient satisfaction score at 24 hours.

Adverse events

Discussion

Strength of the study

Limitations

Generalisability

Conclusions

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated