CT analysis of the anterior nasal airway based on the direction of nasal airflow in patients with nasal obstruction and trauma controls.
Acoustic rhinometry
Case–control studies
Computed tomography
Nasal cavity
Nasal obstruction
Respiratory airflow
Journal
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
19
09
2022
accepted:
12
10
2022
pubmed:
16
10
2022
medline:
9
3
2023
entrez:
15
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The anterior nose is the nasal segment with the highest resistance to airflow. In a hospital-based case-control study, we compared cross-sectional areas of the nasal cavities anterior to the piriform aperture determined by computed tomography (CT-CSA) in patients with nasal obstruction (cases) and unselected patients with trauma unrelated to the head and face (controls). CT-CSA could be reproducibly identified at angles of 0 CT-CSA ranged from 7 to 250 mm Cross-sectional areas of the anterior nose perpendicular to the direction of nasal airflow, which is considered relevant in terms of flow physics, can be reliably measured using CT. Anterior nasal cavities in patients with nasal obstruction were more asymmetric and, as a whole, narrower than in controls, the latter of which is not corrected by routine septoplasty.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36242609
doi: 10.1007/s00405-022-07703-1
pii: 10.1007/s00405-022-07703-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1765-1774Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Fokkens WJ (2017) Blocked noses. Rhinology 55(2):97–98. https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhin17.402
doi: 10.4193/Rhin17.402
pubmed: 28604844
Haight JS, Cole P (1983) The site and function of the nasal valve. Laryngoscope 93(1):49–55
doi: 10.1288/00005537-198301000-00009
pubmed: 6823174
Hilberg O, Jackson AC, Swift DL, Pedersen OF (1989) Acoustic rhinometry: evaluation of nasal cavity geometry by acoustic reflection. J Appl Physiol 66(1):295–303
doi: 10.1152/jappl.1989.66.1.295
pubmed: 2917933
Giotakis AI, Tomazic PV, Riechelmann H, Vent J (2017) Objective assessment of nasal patency. Facial Plast Surg 33(4):378–387. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1604356
doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1604356
pubmed: 28753711
Riechelmann H, Widmann G, Kofler B, Arminger R, Url C, Giotakis AI (2020) Nasal floor asymmetry is associated with nasal obstruction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2020.05.011
doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.05.011
pubmed: 32544472
Cho GS, Kim JH, Jang YJ (2012) Correlation of nasal obstruction with nasal cross-sectional area measured by computed tomography in patients with nasal septal deviation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 121(4):239–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348941212100409
doi: 10.1177/000348941212100409
pubmed: 22606927
Ardeshirpour F, McCarn KE, McKinney AM, Odland RM, Yueh B, Hilger PA (2016) Computed tomography scan does not correlate with patient experience of nasal obstruction. Laryngoscope 126(4):820–825. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25784
doi: 10.1002/lary.25784
pubmed: 27000938
Sedaghat AR, Kieff DA, Bergmark RW, Cunnane ME, Busaba NY (2015) Radiographic evaluation of nasal septal deviation from computed tomography correlates poorly with physical exam findings. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 5(3):258–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21445
doi: 10.1002/alr.21445
pubmed: 25412986
Zhao K, Jiang J (2014) What is normal nasal airflow? A computational study of 22 healthy adults. Int Forum of Allergy Rhinol 4(6):435–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21319
doi: 10.1002/alr.21319
Widmann G, Zangerl A, Schullian P, Fasser M, Puelacher W, Bale R (2012) Do image modality and registration method influence the accuracy of craniofacial navigation? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 70(9):2165–2173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.08.026
doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.08.026
pubmed: 22079059
Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. StatMethods Med Res 8(2):135–160
Widmann G, Fasser M, Schullian P, Zangerl A, Puelacher W, Kral F, Riechelmann H, Jaschke W, Bale R (2012) Substantial dose reduction in modern multi-slice spiral computed tomography (MSCT)-guided craniofacial and skull base surgery. Rofo 184(2):136–142. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1281971
doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1281971
pubmed: 22274855
Borojeni AAT, Garcia GJM, Moghaddam MG, Frank-Ito DO, Kimbell JS, Laud PW, Koenig LJ, Rhee JS (2020) Normative ranges of nasal airflow variables in healthy adults. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 15(1):87–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-019-02023-y
doi: 10.1007/s11548-019-02023-y
pubmed: 31267334
Bui NL, Ong SH, Foong KW (2015) Automatic segmentation of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses from cone-beam CT images. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10(8):1269–1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-014-1134-5
doi: 10.1007/s11548-014-1134-5
pubmed: 25503593
Sforza C, Grandi G, De Menezes M, Tartaglia GM, Ferrario VF (2011) Age- and sex-related changes in the normal human external nose. Forensic Sci Int 204(1–3):205.e201-205.e209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.07.027
doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.07.027
Terheyden H, Maune S, Mertens J, Hilberg O (2000) Acoustic rhinometry: validation by three-dimensionally reconstructed computer tomographic scans. J Appl Physiol (Bethesda, Md: 1985) 89(3):1013–1021. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.3.1013
doi: 10.1152/jappl.2000.89.3.1013
Go BC, Frost A, Friedman O (2022) Addressing the nasal valves: the endonasal approach. Facial Plast Surg 38(1):57–65. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1740263
doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1740263
pubmed: 34905801
Heppt H, Vent J, Alali M, Paal C, Heppt W (2019) Nasal valve lift in nasal valve stenosis-a 2 years clinical trial. Facial Plast Surg 35(1):14–22. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1677854
doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1677854
pubmed: 30759457
Pedersen L, Schiöler L, Finjan S, Davidsson Å, Sunnergren O, Holmberg K, AhlströmEmanuelsson C, Hellgren J (2019) Prognostic factors for outcome after septoplasty in 888 patients from the Swedish National Septoplasty Register. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 276(8):2223–2228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05440-6
doi: 10.1007/s00405-019-05440-6
pubmed: 31037387
pmcid: 6616214
Haavisto LE, Sipilä JI (2013) Acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry and visual analogue scale before and after septal surgery: a prospective 10-year follow-up. Clin Otolaryngol 38(1):23–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12043
doi: 10.1111/coa.12043
pubmed: 23122056
Muñoz-Cano R, Salvador R, Valero A, Berenguer J, Alobid I, Bartra J, Guilemany JM, Mullol J, Picado C (2010) Accuracy of acoustic rhinometry versus computed tomography in the evaluation of nasal cavity in patients with nasal polyposis. Rhinology 48(2):224–227. https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhin09.067
doi: 10.4193/Rhin09.067
pubmed: 20502765
Jackson AC, Butler JP, Millet EJ, Hoppin FG, Dawson SV (1977) Airway geometry by analysis of acoustic pulse response measurements. JapplPhysiol 43:523–536
Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2005) Compared to what? Finding controls for case-control studies. The Lancet 365(9468):1429–1433. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66379-9
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66379-9
Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL, Weaver EM, Yueh B, Hannley MT (2004) Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. OtolaryngolHead Neck Surg 130(2):157–163
doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2003.09.016