Effect of Laser Posterior Nasal Neurolysis for the Treatment of Chronic Rhinitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Int Forum Allergy RhinolMar 5, 2026 (epub)
Clinical ResearchOtolaryngology (ENT)Open access

Jyun-Yi Liao, En-Ying Wang, Ying-Shuo Hsu et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This single-center, prospective, single-blinded, randomized sham-controlled trial evaluated CO₂ laser posterior nasal nerve treatment in patients with chronic rhinitis and specified minimum symptom scores. At 3 months, the active-treatment group had a greater reduction in reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) than the sham group: -4.7 (95% CI, -5.5 to -3.9) versus -2.6 (95% CI, -3.4 to -1.8; p = 0.002). The 30% improvement responder rate was not significantly different, although a post-hoc analysis found more patients achieved at least 50% improvement with active treatment.

Key findings

  • At 3 months, rTNSS decreased by -4.7 (95% CI, -5.5 to -3.9) with active treatment versus -2.6 (95% CI, -3.4 to -1.8) with sham (p = 0.002).
  • The responder rate for at least 30% rTNSS improvement was 81.4% versus 63.6% (p = 0.119), not a significant difference.
  • In a post-hoc analysis, at least 50% rTNSS improvement occurred in 65.1% versus 31.8% (p = 0.011).
  • PSQI and ESS scores improved more with active treatment than sham at follow-up (p = 0.041 and 0.005, respectively).

Why it matters

Chronic rhinitis can impose substantial symptom burden. In this sham-controlled trial, laser treatment of the posterior nasal nerve area produced a greater short-term reduction in nasal symptoms than the sham procedure, with reported improvements in sleep-related measures as well. The findings add controlled evidence for this intervention, while the nonsignificant primary responder-rate comparison warrants attention when interpreting the magnitude of benefit.

What to keep in mind

The trial was single-center and single-blinded, and the primary endpoint was assessed at 3 months. The at-least-50% responder result came from a post-hoc analysis.

Source

Published in Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Otolaryngology (ENT)

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.