- All Journals
- Al-Qadisiyah University
- Basrah University
- Kirkuk University
- Mosul University
- The Iraqi Borad for Medical Specialization
- University of Anbar
- University of Technology
- Al Mustafa University
- Al-Zahraa University for Women
- Alnoor University
- Kunooz University
- Misan University
- Ninevah University
- Tikrit University
- University of Al-Hamdaniya
- University of Kerbala
Rhinomanometric Evaluation of Patients with Nasal Obstruction Before and After Nasal Surgery | ||
| Al- Anbar Medical Journal | ||
| Article 3, Volume 17, Issue 2, 2021, Pages 55-58 PDF (282.75 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original articles | ||
| DOI: 10.33091/amj.2021.171070 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Thenoon Y A. Alkuder .* 1; Husam H. Salman .2 | ||
| 1Department of Surgery, Basrah Teaching Hospital, Basrah Health Directorate, Basrah, Iraq. | ||
| 2Independent Researcher, Basrah, Iraq. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Background: Nasal obstruction is a common complaint in daily Otolaryngology practice. Rhinomanometric study is an objective tool for the evaluation of nasal obstruction. Objectives: To evaluate whether a correlation exists between the rhinomanomatric measurement of nasal resistance, nasal airflow, and the subjective sensation of airflow, pre and postoperatively. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted in the Otolaryngology Department at Basrah Teaching Hospital on 23 patients who prepared for nasal surgeries to improve their nasal obstruction complain. The study was covered the period of the 2004 year. The anterior rhinomanometry was done for all patients preoperatively (with and without decongestant) and post-operatively without decongestant. Results: Out of 23 patients, 15 (65.2%) were males. The age ranged from 17 to 45 years with a mean of 25.5 years ± 7.019. The most common associated symptom with nasal obstruction was rhinorrhea (n=15, 65.2%). Only 12 cases were attended by the postoperative evaluation. Three-quarters of them were showed clinical improvement, but 4 patients (34%) were showed rhinomanometric improvement (P-value = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference between the pre- and postoperative rhinomanometric values without decongestant and the subjective sensation (P-value>0.05). Conclusion: The anterior rhinomanometry results didn’t add a significant value to the clinical evaluation of the patients with nasal obstruction. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| nasal obstruction; Rhinomanometry; Nasal surgery; Evaluation | ||
| References | ||
|
[1] H. Lara-Sánchez, C. Á. Nuño, E. G.-C. Sañudo, A. M. Iscar, and L. Á. V. Valdezate, “Assessment of nasal obstruction with rhinomanometry and subjective scales and outcomes of surgical and medical treatment,” Acta Otorrinolaringol. (English Ed., vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 145–150, 2017.
[2] J. J. Yepes-Nuñez et al., “Assessment of nasal obstruction: correlation between subjective and objective techniques,” Allergol. Immunopathol. (Madr)., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 397–401, 2013.
[3] D. Widiarni, W. W. Paramyta, R. S. Wardani, and A. Bachtiar, “Comparison of nasal obstruction symptom evaluation, peak nasal inspiratory flowmeter, and rhinomanometry in patients with nasal deformities,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2018, vol. 1073, no. 2, p. 22024.
[4] S. Brescovici and R. Roithmann, “Modified glatzel mirror test reproducibility in the evaluation of nasal patency,” Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol., vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 215–222, 2008.
[5] S. Canakcioglu, R. Tahamiler, G. Saritzali, H. Isildak, and Y. Alimoglu, “Nasal patency by rhinomanometry in patients with sensation of nasal obstruction,” Am. J. Rhinol. Allergy, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 300–302, 2009.
[6] D. Demirbas, C. Cingi, H. Çakli, and E. Kaya, “Use of rhinomanometry in common rhinologic disorders,” Expert Rev. Med. Devices, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 769–777, 2011.
[7] A. I. Mendes, G. F. Wandalsen, and D. Solé, “Objective and subjective assessments of nasal obstruction in children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis,” J. Pediatr. (Rio. J)., vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 389–395, 2012.
[8] L. Shemen and R. Hamburg, “Preoperative and postoperative nasal septal surgery assessment with acoustic rhinometry,” Otolaryngol. Neck Surg., vol. 117, no. 4, pp. 338–342, 1997.
[9] J. F. Pallanch, T. V Mccaffrey, and E. B. Kern, “Evaluation of nasal breathing function with objective airway testing. u: Cummings CW; Fredrickson JM; Harker al LA [ur.],” Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surgery, St. Louis, MO Mosby-Year Book, Inc, 1998.
[10] R. Roithmann, P. Cole, J. Chapnik, S. M. Barreto, J. P. Szalai, and N. Zamel, “Acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry, and the sensation of nasal patency: a correlative study.,” J. Otolaryngol., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 454–458, 1994.
[11] P. A. R. Clement, “Rhinomanometry,” Allergy, vol. 52, pp. 26–27, 1997.
[12] T. W. Guyette and B. E. Smith, “Effect of septal perforations on measures of nasal resistance,” Cleft palate-craniofacial J., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 129–134, 1997.
[13] C. S. Kim, B. K. Moon, D. H. Jung, and Y.-G. Min, “Correlation between nasal obstruction symptoms and objective parameters of acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry,” Auris Nasus Larynx, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 45–48, 1998.
[14] J. Sipilä, J. Suonpää, P. Silvoniemi, and P. Laippala, “Correlations between subjective sensation of nasal patency and rhinomanometry in both unilateral and total nasal assessment,” ORL, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 260–263, 1995.
[15] P. B. Dinis and H. Haider, “Septoplasty: long-term evaluation of results,” Am. J. Otolaryngol., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 85–90, 2002.
[16] M. H. Dadgarnia, M. H. Baradaranfar, and M. Mazidi, “Assessment of septoplasty effectiveness using acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry,” Iran. J. Otorhinolaryngol., vol. 25, no. 71, p. 71, 2013. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 567 PDF Download: 383 |
||