The effect of decongestion on nasal airway patency and airflow.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 07 2021
13 07 2021
Historique:
received:
21
10
2020
accepted:
28
06
2021
entrez:
14
7
2021
pubmed:
15
7
2021
medline:
6
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Nasal decongestant reduces blood flow to the nasal turbinates, reducing tissue volume and increasing nasal airway patency. This study maps the changes in nasal anatomy and measures how these changes affect nasal resistance, flow partitioning between superior and inferior cavity, flow patterns and wall shear stress. High-resolution MRI was applied to capture nasal anatomy in 10 healthy subjects before and after application of a topical decongestant. Computational fluid dynamics simulated nasal airflow at steady inspiratory flow rates of 15 L.min[Formula: see text] and 30 L.min[Formula: see text]. The results show decongestion mainly increases the cross-sectional area in the turbinate region and SAVR is reduced (median approximately 40[Formula: see text] reduction) in middle and lower parts of the cavity. Decongestion reduces nasal resistance by 50[Formula: see text] on average, while in the posterior cavity, nasal resistance decreases by a median factor of approximately 3 after decongestion. We also find decongestant regularises nasal airflow and alters the partitioning of flow, significantly decreasing flow through the superior portions of the nasal cavity. By comparing nasal anatomies and airflow in their normal state with that when pharmacologically decongested, this study provides data for a broad range of anatomy and airflow conditions, which may help characterize the extent of nasal variability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34257360
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-93769-6
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-93769-6
pmc: PMC8277849
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
14410Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Naclerio, R. M., Bachert, C. & Baraniuk, J. N. Pathophysiology of nasal congestion. Int. J. Gen. Med. 3, 47 (2010).
pubmed: 20463823
pmcid: 2866558
doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S8088
Zachow, S., Steinmann, A., Hildebrandt, T., Weber, R. & Heppt, W. Cfd simulation of nasal airflow: Towards treatment planning for functional rhinosurgery. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 1, 165–167 (2006).
Kimbell, J. S. et al. Computed nasal resistance compared with patient-reported symptoms in surgically treated nasal airway passages: a preliminary report. Am. J. Rhinol. Allergy 26, e94–e98 (2012).
pubmed: 22643935
pmcid: 3490502
doi: 10.2500/ajra.2012.26.3766
Leong, S., Chen, X., Lee, H. & Wang, D. A review of the implications of computational fluid dynamic studies on nasal airflow and physiology. Rhinology 48, 139 (2010).
pubmed: 20502749
Kim, J. K. et al. Particle image velocimetry measurements for the study of nasal airflow. Korean J. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 45, 1063–1068 (2002).
Kim, S. K. & Haw, J. R. An investigation on airflow in pathological nasal airway by piv. J. Vis. 7, 341–348 (2004).
doi: 10.1007/BF03181538
Phuong, N. L. & Ito, K. Investigation of flow pattern in upper human airway including oral and nasal inhalation by piv and cfd. Build. Environ. 94, 504–515 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.10.002
Chen, H. et al. A novel imaging technique to evaluate airflow characteristics in the upper airway of an obstructive sleep apnea patient. Clin. Case Rep. 5, 1084 (2017).
pubmed: 28680600
pmcid: 5494377
doi: 10.1002/ccr3.716
Cherobin, G. B. et al. Rhinomanometry versus computational fluid dynamics: Correlated, but different techniques. Am. J. Rhinol. Allergy 35, 245–255 (2021).
pubmed: 32806938
doi: 10.1177/1945892420950157
Quadrio, M. et al. Review of computational fluid dynamics in the assessment of nasal air flow and analysis of its limitations. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 271, 2349–2354 (2014).
pubmed: 24100883
doi: 10.1007/s00405-013-2742-3
Becker, S. S., Dobratz, E. J., Stowell, N., Barker, D. & Park, S. S. Revision septoplasty: review of sources of persistent nasal obstruction. Am. J. Rhinol. 22, 440–444 (2008).
pubmed: 18702913
doi: 10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3200
Rhee, J. S., Cannon, D. E., Frank, D. O. & Kimbell, J. S. Role of virtual surgery in preoperative planning: assessing the individual components of functional nasal airway surgery. Arch. Facial Plast. Surg. 14, 354–359 (2012).
pubmed: 22508896
pmcid: 3578233
doi: 10.1001/archfaci.2012.182
Vanhille, D. L. et al. Virtual surgery for the nasal airway: a preliminary report on decision support and technology acceptance. JAMA Fac. Plast. Surg. 20, 63–69 (2018).
doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2017.1554
Frank-Ito, D. O., Kimbell, J. S., Borojeni, A. A., Garcia, G. J. & Rhee, J. S. A hierarchical stepwise approach to evaluate nasal patency after virtual surgery for nasal airway obstruction. Clin. Biomech. 61, 172–180 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.12.014
Zhang, Y. et al. Computational fluid dynamics (cfd) investigation of aerodynamic characters inside nasal cavity towards surgical treatments for secondary atrophic rhinitis. Math. Prbl. Eng. 2019, 2 (2019).
Moghaddam, M. G., Garcia, G. J., Frank-Ito, D. O., Kimbell, J. S. & Rhee, J. S. Virtual septoplasty: a method to predict surgical outcomes for patients with nasal airway obstruction. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 1–11, 2 (2020).
Alam, S., Li, C., Bradburn, K. H., Zhao, K. & Lee, T. S. Impact of middle turbinectomy on airflow to the olfactory cleft: A computational fluid dynamics study. Am. J. Rhinol. Allergy 33, 263–268 (2019).
pubmed: 30543120
doi: 10.1177/1945892418816841
Zhao, K., Malhotra, P., Rosen, D., Dalton, P. & Pribitkin, E. A. Computational fluid dynamics as surgical planning tool: a pilot study on middle turbinate resection. Anat. Rec. 297, 2187–2195 (2014).
doi: 10.1002/ar.23033
Mortuaire, G. et al. Rebound congestion and rhinitis medicamentosa: nasal decongestants in clinical practice. critical review of the literature by a medical panel. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis. 130, 137–144 (2013).
pubmed: 23375990
doi: 10.1016/j.anorl.2012.09.005
Masood, A., Moumoulidis, I. & Panesar, J. Acute rhinosinusitis in adults: an update on current management. Postgrad. Med. J. 83, 402–408 (2007).
pubmed: 17551072
pmcid: 2600057
doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2006.054767
Bickford, L., Shakib, S. & Taverner, D. The nasal airways response in normal subjects to oxymetazoline spray: randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 48, 53–56 (1999).
pubmed: 10383560
pmcid: 2014869
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.1999.00972.x
Heetderks, D. R. Observations on the reaction of normal nasal mucous membkane. Am. J. Med. Sci. 174, 231–243 (1927).
doi: 10.1097/00000441-192708000-00008
Hasegawa, M. & Kern, E. The human nasal cycle. Mayo Clin. Proc. 52, 28–34 (1977).
pubmed: 609283
Gungor, A., Moinuddin, R., Nelson, R. H. & Corey, J. P. Detection of the nasal cycle with acoustic rhinometry: techniques and applications. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 120, 238–247 (1999).
pubmed: 9949359
doi: 10.1016/S0194-5998(99)70413-4
Eccles, R. The central rhythm of the nasal cycle. Acta Otolaryngol. 86, 464–468 (1978).
pubmed: 716867
doi: 10.3109/00016487809124769
Flanagan, P. & Eccles, R. Spontaneous changes of unilateral nasal airflow in man. a re-examination of the nasal cycle. Acta Otolaryngol. 117, 590–595 (1997).
pubmed: 9288218
doi: 10.3109/00016489709113443
Kim, S. K. & Chung, S. K. Investigation on the respiratory airflow in human airway by piv. J. Vis. 12, 259–266 (2009).
doi: 10.1007/BF03181864
De Yun Wang, H. P. L. & Gordon, B. R. Impacts of fluid dynamics simulation in study of nasal airflow physiology and pathophysiology in realistic human three-dimensional nose models. Clin. Exp. Otorhinolaryngol. 5, 181 (2012).
doi: 10.3342/ceo.2012.5.4.181
Cherobin, G. B., Voegels, R. L., Gebrim, E. M. & Garcia, G. J. Sensitivity of nasal airflow variables computed via computational fluid dynamics to the computed tomography segmentation threshold. PLoS ONE 13, e0207178 (2018).
pubmed: 30444909
pmcid: 6239298
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207178
Inthavong, K. et al. Geometry and airflow dynamics analysis in the nasal cavity during inhalation. Clin. Biomech. 66, 97–106 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.10.006
Zhao, K. & Jiang, J. What is normal nasal airflow? A computational study of 22 healthy adults. In International forum of allergy rhinology, vol. 4, 435–446 (Wiley Online Library, 2014).
Daniels, S. J., Rahat, A. A., Everson, R. M., Tabor, G. R. & Fieldsend, J. E. A suite of computationally expensive shape optimisation problems using computational fluid dynamics. In International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, 296–307 (Springer, 2018).
Rudmik, L. et al. Using preoperative snot-22 score to inform patient decision for endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 125, 1517–1522 (2015).
pubmed: 25546168
doi: 10.1002/lary.25108
Kennedy, J. L. et al. Sino-nasal outcome test (snot-22): A predictor of postsurgical improvement in patients with chronic sinusitis. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 111, 246–251 (2013).
pubmed: 24054358
pmcid: 3977600
doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2013.06.033
David B. Bylund, M. . L. xPharm: The Comprehensive Pharmacology Reference (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007).
Doorly, D., Taylor, D., Gambaruto, A., Schroter, R. & Tolley, N. Nasal architecture: form and flow. Philos. Trans. R. Soci. Lond. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 366, 3225–3246 (2008).
Li, C., Jiang, J., Dong, H. & Zhao, K. Computational modeling and validation of human nasal airflow under various breathing conditions. J. Biomech. 64, 59–68 (2017).
pubmed: 28893392
pmcid: 5694356
doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.08.031
Anderson, N. J., Cassidy, P. E., Janssen, L. L. & Dengel, D. R. Peak inspiratory flows of adults exercising at light, moderate and heavy workloads. J. Int. Soc. Respir. Protect. 23, 53–63 (2006).
Garcia, G. J. et al. Dosimetry of nasal uptake of water-soluble and reactive gases: A first study of interhuman variability. Inhalation Toxicol. 21, 607–618 (2009).
doi: 10.1080/08958370802320186
Doorly, D., Taylor, D. & Schroter, R. Mechanics of airflow in the human nasal airways. Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol. 163, 100–110 (2008).
pubmed: 18786659
doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2008.07.027
Bates, A. J. et al. Dynamics of airflow in a short inhalation. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20140880 (2015).
pubmed: 25551147
pmcid: 4277078
doi: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0880
Zhao, K., Dalton, P., Yang, G. C. & Scherer, P. W. Numerical modeling of turbulent and laminar airflow and odorant transport during sniffing in the human and rat nose. Chem. Senses 31, 107–118 (2006).
pubmed: 16354744
doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjj008
Rey D., Neuhäuser M. (2011) Wilcoxon-Signed-Rank Test. In: Lovric M. (eds) International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Deviant, S. The Practically Cheating Statistics Handbook– (Lulu. com, 2011).
Di Leo, G. & Sardanelli, F. Statistical significance: p value, 0.05 threshold, and applications to radiomics-reasons for a conservative approach. Eur. Radiol. Exp. 4, 1–8 (2020).
Wasserstein, R. L. & Lazar, N. A. The asa statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. Am. Stat. 70, 129–133 (2016).
doi: 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
Ritchie L, Application of computational methods as an adjunct to upper airway assessment. MD thesis, Imperial College London https://doi.org/10.25560/71300 (2018).
Nigro, C. E. N., de Aguiar Nigro, J. F., Mion, O. & Mello, J. . F. . Jr. Nasal valve: anatomy and physiology. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 75, 305–310 (2009).
pubmed: 19575121
doi: 10.1016/S1808-8694(15)30795-3
Zhao, K., Blacker, K., Luo, Y., Bryant, B. & Jiang, J. Perceiving nasal patency through mucosal cooling rather than air temperature or nasal resistance. PLoS ONE 6, e24618 (2011).
pubmed: 22022361
pmcid: 3192719
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024618