Responsiveness of acoustic rhinometry to septorhinoplasty by comparison with rhinomanometry and subjective instruments.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Case-Control Studies
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Nasal Obstruction
/ physiopathology
Nasal Septum
/ surgery
Postoperative Period
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
Rhinomanometry
/ methods
Rhinometry, Acoustic
/ methods
Rhinoplasty
/ methods
Young Adult
Journal
Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery
ISSN: 1749-4486
Titre abrégé: Clin Otolaryngol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101247023
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2019
09 2019
Historique:
received:
12
02
2019
revised:
12
05
2019
accepted:
09
06
2019
pubmed:
21
6
2019
medline:
25
9
2020
entrez:
21
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Nose patency measures and instruments assessing subjective health are increasingly being used in rhinology. However, there is very little evidence of comparing existing methods' responsiveness to change. We evaluated the responsiveness of acoustic rhinometry to nasal valve surgery by comparison with rhinomanometry and patient-reported outcome instruments. Prospective case-control study. Tertiary referral University Hospital. Sixty consecutive patients with internal nasal valve dysfunction and 20 healthy volunteers as control group were enrolled. Prospectively collected data included acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry, NOSE scale, SNOT-23 questionnaire, visual analogue scale and demographics. Primary endpoint was the responsiveness of acoustic rhinometry to functional septorhinoplasty surgery at 3 months. Secondary endpoints were ability of acoustic rhinometry to reflect "known group" differences and correlation to subjective symptoms. Acoustic rhinometry was highly responsive to septorhinoplasty (P < 0.0001) while anterior rhinomanometry was not (P = 0.08). Based on the quartiles of the postoperative change in NOSE score, patients were classified as, respectively, non-responders, mild, moderate and good responders to surgery. Logistic regression model showed that acoustic rhinometry was able to discriminate non-responders to responders to surgery (P = 0.019), while anterior rhinomanometry failed (P = 0.611). Sensitivity and specificity of acoustic rhinometry were significantly higher (ROC area = 0.76) than rhinomanometry (ROC area = 0.48). Acoustic rhinometry was also superior than rhinomanometry to discriminate patients from control subjects and agreed better with patients-based subjective questionnaires. Our study confirms and quantifies the responsiveness of acoustic rhinometry to nasal valve surgery, with a higher sensitivity and specificity than rhinomanometry.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
778-783Informations de copyright
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Naito K, Miyata S, Saito S, Sakurai K, Takeuchi K. Comparison of perceptional nasal obstruction with rhinomanometric and acoustic rhinometric assessment. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001;258:505-508.
Reber M, Rahm F, Monnier P. The role of acoustic rhinometry in the pre- and postoperative evaluation of surgery for nasal obstruction. Rhinology. 1998;36:184-187.
Numminen J, Ahtinen M, Huhtala H, Rautiainen M. Comparison of rhinometric measurements methods in intranasal pathology. Rhinology. 2003;41:65-68.
Andre RF, Vuyk HD, Ahmed A, Graamans K, Nolst Trenité GJ. Correlation between subjective and objective evaluation of the nasal airway. A systematic review of the highest level of evidence. Clin Otolaryngol. 2009;34:518-525.
de Dorlodot C, Horoi M, Lefebvre P, et al. French adaptation and validation of the sino-nasal outcome test-22: a prospective cohort study on quality of life among 422 subjects. Clin Otolaryngol. 2015;40(1):29-35.
Takhar AS, Stephens J, Randhawa PS, Poirrier AL, Andrews P. Validation of the sino-nasal outcome test-23 in septorhinoplasty surgery. Rhinology. 2014;52(4):320-326.
Menger DJ, Swart K, Nolst Trenite GJ, Georgalas C, Grolman W. Surgery of the external nasal valve: the correlation between subjective and objective measurements. Clin Otolaryngol. 2014;39:150-155.
Szucs E, Clement PA. Acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry in the evaluation of nasal patency of patients with nasal septal deviation. Am J Rhinol. 1998;12:345-352.
Kahraman E, Cil Y, Incesulu A. The effect of nasal obstruction after different nasal surgeries using acoustic rhinometry and nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale. World J Plast Surg. 2016;5(3):236-243.
Persichetti P, Toto V, Marangi GF, Poccia I. Extracorporeal septoplasty: functional results of a modified technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69(3):232-239.
Moore M, Eccles R. Objective evidence for the efficacy of surgical management of the deviated septum as a treatment for chronic nasal obstruction: a systematic review. Clin Otolaryngol. 2011;36:106-113.
Mengi E, Cukurova I, Yalcin Y, Yigitbasi OG, Karaman Y. Evaluation of operation success in patients with nasal septal deviation with quality of life scale and objective methods. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 2011;21:184-191.
Haavisto LE, Sipila JI. Acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry and visual analogue scale before and after septal surgery: a prospective 10-year follow-up. Clin Otolaryngol. 2013;38:23-29.
O'Neill G, Tolly NS. Theoretical considerations of nasal airflow mechanics and surgical implications. Clin Otolaryngol. 1988;13:273-277.
Min YG, Jang YJ. Measurements of cross-sectional area of the nasal cavity by acoustic rhinometry and CT scanning. Laryngoscope. 1995;105:757-759.
Mamikoglu B, Houser S, Akbar I, Ng B, Corey JP. Acoustic rhinometry and computed tomography scans for the diagnosis of nasal septal deviation, with clinical correlation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;1:61-68.
Lu J, Han D, Zhang L. Accuracy evaluation of a numerical simulation model of nasal airflow. Acta Otolaryngol. 2014;134(5):513-519.
Hilberg O, Pedersen OF. Acoustic rhinometry: recommendations for technical specifications and standard operating procedures. Rhinol Suppl. 2000;16:3-17.
Zhao K, Jiang J. What is normal nasal airflow? A computational study of 22 healthy adults. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2014;4:435-446.
Li C, Farag AA, Leach J, et al. Computational fluid dynamics and trigeminal sensory examinations of empty nose syndrome patients. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(6):176-184.
Li C, Farag AA, Maza G, et al. Investigation of the abnormal nasal aerodynamics and trigeminal functions among empty nose syndrome patients. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018;8(3):444-452.
Radulesco T, Penicaud M, Santini L, Thomassin JM, Dessi P, Michel J. Outcomes of septorhinoplasty: a new approach comparing functional and aesthetic results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47(2):175-179.
Pirila T, Tikanto J. Unilateral and bilateral effect of nasal septum surgery demonstrated with acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry and subjective assessment. Am J Rhinol. 2001;15:127-133.
Toyserkani NM, Frisch T, von Buchwald C. Postoperative improvement in acoustic rhinometry measurements after septoplasty correlates with long-term satisfaction. Rhinology. 2013;51:171-175.
Persichetti P, Toto V, Segreto F, Signoretti M, Marangi GF. Modified extracorporeal septoplasty: functional results at 6-year follow-up. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(5):504-508.