Surgical techniques for resistant chronic rhinitis (rhinorrhoea) vary, ranging from vidian neurectomy to post-nasal neurectomy. The techniques vary mainly on the basis of instrumentation, and the avoidance of post-operative epistaxis, transient hypoesthesia of the soft palate and dryness of the eye. Endoscopic visualisation, and cauterisation or resection of posterior nasal nerve branches, can prevent such complications.

The technique and surgical steps of endoscopic posterior nasal neurectomy are presented.

The critical steps include: bilateral sphenopalatine nerve blocks, transnasally or transorally via the greater palatine foramen; vertical incisions made behind the posterior fontanelle; and elevation of the mucoperiosteal flap. The sphenopalatine foramen and artery is identified. The posterior nasal nerve is located 4–5 mm inferior to the sphenopalatine artery, and is resected or cauterised. The flaps are repositioned back into place. No post-operative nasal packing is required. The same procedure is performed on the opposite side for effective results.

This technique provides consistent, robust results, with long-term relief of allergic and vasomotor rhinitis related nasal symptoms, without risk of complication.

Subcutaneous immunotherapy is an effective and safe treatment for allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. Different symptom scores are used to evaluate the efficacy of subcutaneous immunotherapy in clinical trials.

A total of 58 allergic rhinitis patients sensitised to house dust mites, with or without mild asthma, were included. Symptom score, medication score, visual analogue scale score and quality of life were assessed before and after 6, 12 and 24 months of subcutaneous immunotherapy.

After two years of subcutaneous immunotherapy, asthma symptom scores nearly reached zero, whereas the scores remained higher for nasal symptoms. The changes in asthma symptom scores were markedly different (p < 0.05) and occurred faster than the changes in nasal symptom scores when compared between monosensitised and polysensitised groups. Significant reductions in visual analogue scale score and medication score were demonstrated after subcutaneous immunotherapy.

Two-year subcutaneous immunotherapy with house dust mite vaccine is an effective treatment for both monosensitised and polysensitised allergic patients. The changes in asthma symptom scores were markedly different and occurred quicker than the changes in nasal symptom scores in Chinese house dust mite allergic patients.

Eosinophils are the principal effector cells involved in the pathogenesis of allergic rhinitis. Cell numbers increase in non-allergic rhinitis patients with eosinophilia, aspirin hypersensitivity and nasal polyposis, as well as in allergic rhinitis patients. Exfoliative nasal cytology can be used in the differential diagnosis of allergic rhinitis.

To evaluate nasal eosinophilia in nasal smears of patients with mild, persistent and intermittent allergic rhinitis.

The study comprised 60 patients with allergic rhinitis and 20 healthy volunteers. The patients were divided into intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis groups. Nasal smear status, eosinophil numbers and Total Nasal Symptom Scores were compared.

Nasal smear results were pathological in 40 of 60 allergic rhinitis patients, which was significantly higher than the rate in controls. The mean nasal eosinophilia score was significantly higher in the intermittent allergic rhinitis than in the persistent allergic rhinitis group (p = 0.029). There was a positive correlation between nasal eosinophilia score and Total Nasal Symptom Score (r = 0.652; p < 0.05) in persistent allergic rhinitis and intermittent allergic rhinitis patients.

The nasal smear test is inexpensive, objective and simple to perform, and should be part of the diagnostic investigation.

Without the release of histamines, patients with rhinosinusitis may not benefit from antihistamines. Additionally, anticholinergic effects may do more harm than good. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of antihistamines in treating rhinosinusitis.

An electronic search was performed. Randomised controlled trials comparing antihistamines with either placebo or other treatments for patients with rhinosinusitis were selected.

Two studies (184 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Loratadine decreased nasal obstruction in allergic rhinitis patients with acute rhinosinusitis (mean difference = −0.58; confidence interval = −0.85 to −0.31, p < 0.01), but had no benefit on total symptom score (mean difference = −1.25; confidence interval = −2.77 to 0.27, p = 0.11), or rhinorrhoea symptoms (mean difference = −0.06; confidence interval = −0.37 to 0.25, p = 0.71).

There is limited evidence to support the use of antihistamines in treating rhinosinusitis. The number of included studies in this systematic review is limited. Antihistamines may relieve nasal obstruction in allergic rhinitis patients with acute rhinosinusitis.

Sublingual immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis sensitised to house dust mites is safe, but its efficacy is controversial and sublingual immunotherapy with Blomia tropicalis has not yet been studied. This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy with house dust mite extract in children and adults with house dust mite allergic rhinitis over a period of two years.

A prospective observational study was conducted of children and adults diagnosed with house dust mite allergic rhinitis who were treated with sublingual immunotherapy from 2008 to 2012. Total Nasal Symptom Scores, Mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life scores and medication usage scores were assessed prospectively.

Thirty-nine patients, comprising 24 children and 15 adults, were studied. Total Nasal Symptom Scores and Mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life scores dropped significantly at three months into therapy, and continued to improve. Medication usage scores improved at one year into immunotherapy.

Sublingual immunotherapy with house dust mite extracts, including B tropicalis, is efficacious as a treatment for patients with house dust mite allergic rhinitis.

Azelastine nasal spray is a topical antihistaminic drug for the symptomatic treatment of allergic rhinitis. This study aimed to investigate the effects of azelastine on nasal and nasopharyngeal microflora.

Swab samples from 25 patients prescribed azelastine nasal spray monotherapy were collected just before treatment and after 1 month of treatment. After incubation of inoculates, the number of bacteria present in cultures was measured (in colony-forming units per millilitre).

Evaluation of the number of microflora revealed increased bacterial reproduction after treatment, but this difference was not statistically significant. The use of azelastine nasal spray decreased the reproduction of three potentially pathogenic bacteria; however, it did not affect the reproduction of other potentially pathogenic bacteria.

The use of azelastine nasal spray for one month did not have a statistically significant effect on the numbers of nasal and nasopharyngeal microflora; it is therefore safe from a microbiological viewpoint.