Measuring of Nasal Obstruction with Flowmeter and Classification of Nasal Endoscopic Evaluation

Czech version

Authors: Z. Knížek ¹; J. Vodička ^1,2; J. Jelínek ³; Z. Režný ⁴
Authors‘ workplace: Klinika otorinolaryngologie a chirurgie hlavy a krku, NPK Pardubická nemocnice ¹; Fakulta zdravotnických studií, Univerzita Pardubice ²; Fakulta mechatroniky, informatiky a mezioborových studií, Technická univerzita v Liberci ³; Elmet, spol. s. r. o., Přelouč ⁴
Published in: Otorinolaryngol Foniatr, 68, 2019, No. 3, pp. 143-149.
Category: Original Article

Overview

Aims: Measuring of nasal obstruction is not applied on most of ENT departments in the Czech Republic due to degree of cooperation required and time constraints. Flowmeter was developed as a simple device for measuring nasal obstruction. Aim of this study is to validate the device for use in ENT practice.

Methods: During 16 months we collected data of healthy subjects, patients with deviated nasal septum and eventually hypertrophy of turbinates. Each side of nasal cavity was classified in accordance to endoscopy findings into one of 6 groups (partly based on Mladina classification of deviated nasal septum). Subjective perception of nasal airway was measured by VAS (visual analogue scale). Airflow in each side of nasal cavity was evaluated with flowmeter (the result is in output voltage).

Results: 73 patients and total number of 146 sides of nasal cavity was included in the study. Group with the lowest degree of obstruction based on endoscopy findings has average VAS 8,34 and 5,42 V measured by flowmeter. Group with the highest degree of obstruction based on endoscopy findings has average VAS 4,0 and 4,29 V measured by flowmeter. Each patient was able to carry out the examination without problems or complications.

Conclusion: Flowmeter appears to be quick method of nasal obstruction measurement with low degree of patient´s cooperation required. We present our new classification of nasal endoscopic evaluation.

Keywords:

nasal obstruction – flowmetry – classification of nasal endoscopy

Sources

1. Baumann, I., Baumann, H.: A new classification of septal deviations. Rhinology, 45, 2007, 3, s. 220-223.

2. Camacho, M., Zaghi, S., Certal, V. et al.: Inferior turbinate classification system, grades 1 to 4: development and validation study. Laryngoscope, 125, 2015, 2, s. 296-302.

3. Clement, P. A.: Committee report on standardization of rhinomanometry. Rhinology, 22, 1984, 3, s. 151-155.

4. Clement, P. A., Gordts, F.: Consensus report on acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry. Rhinology, 43, 2005, 3, s. 169-179.

5. Duman, H., Bostanci, I., Ozmen, S. et al.: The relevance of nasal provocation testing in children with nonallergic rhinitis. Int Arch Allergy Immunol, 170, 2016, 2, s. 115-121.

6. Eccles, R.: A guide to practical aspects of measurement of human nasal airflow by rhinomanometry. Rhinology, 49, 2011, 1, s. 2-10.

7. Fisher, E. W., Lund, V. J., Scadding, G. K.: Acoustic rhinometry in rhinological practice: discussion paper. J R Soc Med, 87, 1994, 7, s. 411-413.

8. Fisher, E. W., Scadding, G. K., Lund, V. J.: The role of acoustic rhinometry in studying the nasal cycle. Rhinology, 31, 1993, 2, s. 57-61.

9. Friedman, M., Tanyeri, H., Lim, J. et al.: A safe, alternative technique for inferior turbinate reduction. Laryngoscope, 109, 1999, 11, s. 1834-1837.

10. Gleeson, M. J., Youlten, L. J., Shelton, D. M. et al.: Assessment of nasal airway patency: a comparison of four methods. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci, 11, 1986, 2, s. 99-107.

11. Guyuron, B., Uzzo, C. D., Scull H.: A practical classification of septonasal deviation and an effective guide to septal surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg, 104, 1999, 7, s. 2202-2209; discussion 2210-2.

12. Holmström, M., Scadding, G. K., Lund, V. J. et al.: Assessment of nasal obstruction. A comparison between rhinomanometry and nasal inspiratory peak flow. Rhinology, 28, 1990, 3, s. 191-196.

13. Hopkins, C., Hettige, R., Soni-Jaiswal, A. et al.: Chronic rhinosinusitis outcome measures (CHROME), developing a core outcome set for trials of interventions in chronic rhinosinusitis. Rhinology, 56, 2018, 1, s. 22-32.

14. Chmielik, L. P.: Types of nasal septum deviation and hearing loss in children. New Medicine, 2006, 3, s.79-81.

15. Jones, A. S., Willatt, D. J., Durham, L. M.: Nasal airflow: resistance and sensation. J Laryngol Otol, 103, 1989, 10, s. 909-911.

16. Jose, J., Ell, S. R.: The association of subjective nasal patency with peak inspiratory nasal flow in a large healthy population. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci, 28, 2003, 4, s. 352-354.

17. Leitzen, K. P., Brietzke, S. E., Lindsay, R. W.: Correlation between nasal anatomy and objective obstructive sleep apnea severity. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 150, 2014, 2, s. 325-331.

18. Leong, S. C., Chen, X. B., Lee, H. P. et al.: A review of the implications of computational fluid dynamic studies on nasal airflow and physiology. Rhinology, 48, 2010, 2, s. 139-145.

19. Lund, V. J., Kennedy, D. W.: Quantification for staging sinusitis. The staging and therapy group. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 167, 1995, s. 17-21.

20. Mladina, R.: The role of maxillar morphology in the development of pathological septal deformities. Rhinology, 25, 1987, 3, s. 199-205.

21. Mladina, R., Skitarelić, N., Poje, G. et al.: Clinical implications of nasal septal deformities. Balkan Med J, 32, 2015, 2, s. 137-146.

22. Ottaviano, G., Scadding, G. K., Coles S. et al.: Peak nasal inspiratory flow; normal range in adult population. Rhinology, 44, 2006, 1, s. 32-35.

23. Teixeira, R. U., Zappelini, C. E., Alves, F. S. et al.: Peak nasal inspiratory flow evaluation as an objective method of measuring nasal airflow. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol, 77, 2011, 4, s. 473-480.

24. Uzun, L., Ugur, M. B., Savranlar, A. et al.: Classification of the inferior turbinate bones: a computed tomography study. Eur J Radiol, 51, 2004, 3, s. 241-245.

25. Vicini, C., De Vito, A., Benazzo, M. et al.: The nose oropharynx hypopharynx and larynx (NOHL) classification: a new system of diagnostic standardized examination for OSAHS patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 269, 2012, 4, s. 1297-1300.