Sequential clinical comparison between two commercially available rhinomanometers

To assess nasal resistance in the treated as well as decongested states, two custom-built rhinomanometers (Rhino-Comp, manufactured by Cintec, Sweden, and Rhinomanometer 200, manufactured by Atmos, Germany) were sequentially employed in 53 non-selected consecutive patients referred for chronic or recurring nasal obstruction complaints, using the same active anterior rhinomanometric method. Final mean results from both equipments were submitted to paired statistical analysis. No correlation was found between the R150 results provided by the two rhinomanometers, albeit a 1.26 to 1.30 difference was encountered in the Rhinomanometer 200/Rhino-Comp ratio when the averaged mean values of all R150 results from both equipments were compared, suggesting that the discrepancy could be due to technical specificities intrinsic to each apparatus, with a tendency to produce systematic R150 differences. When the graphic aspect of the curves from both equipments were compared using the Broms system parameter V2 values, a remarkable correlation was seen between Rhino-Comp and Rhinomanometer 200 in expiratory (but not inspiratory) results, suggesting that the expiratory curves produced by the two equipments are graphically similar, at least until the Broms system radius 2 interception. Enough data was also found to support the possibility that the manufacturer's option to use a nose adaptor instead of adhesive tape for anterior nares occlusion with the Rhinomanometer 200 equipment could interfere with nasal vestibular function and thus artificially affect resistance measurements. Finally, patients' preference for either equipment examination procedures are discussed.