Related Experiment Videos
Anterior and posterior rhinomanometry.
P Cole1, A Ayiomanimitis, M Ohki
1Univ. Dept. of Otolaryngology, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Rhinology
|December 1, 1989
Summary
Comparing three rhinomanometric methods, researchers found no significant differences in nasal resistance measurements. Posterior pernasal catheter use proved less variable for assessing nasal airflow resistance.
Area of Science:
- Otolaryngology
- Respiratory Physiology
- Medical Instrumentation
Background:
- Accurate measurement of nasal airflow resistance is crucial for diagnosing and managing nasal obstruction.
- Traditional rhinomanometric techniques, including anterior and posterior methods, have limitations in precision and patient comfort.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the accuracy and variability of three transnasal pressure detection techniques: traditional anterior rhinomanometry, traditional posterior (peroral) rhinomanometry, and posterior pernasal catheter rhinomanometry.
- To evaluate the impact of a fine catheter on nasal airflow resistance.
Main Methods:
- Computer-aided plethysmographic rhinomanometry was employed to measure mean unilateral resistances.
- Measurements were taken in a decongested nose of an experienced subject using anterior (sealed anterior catheter) and posterior (peroral) methods.
- A fine catheter was inserted pernasally to the nasopharynx for posterior measurements.
- Resistance was also measured in 35 consecutive patients before and after decongestant treatment.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in the magnitude of nasal resistance were found between the three techniques (p = 0.73).
- An #8F catheter adequately conducted transnasal pressures and did not significantly increase airflow resistance when placed along the nasal floor.
- Posterior pernasal catheter measurements exhibited less variability compared to traditional anterior or posterior methods.
- In naive patients, posterior rhinomanometric resistances averaged 9% greater than pernasal measurements, with no significant difference between immediate and 5-minute post-insertion readings.
Conclusions:
- Posterior pernasal catheter rhinomanometry offers a reliable and less variable method for assessing nasal airflow resistance.
- The fine catheter technique is suitable for measuring transnasal pressures without significantly altering nasal airflow dynamics.
- This method provides a valuable alternative for objective nasal resistance assessment in clinical settings.