scholarly journals Investigating the nasal cycle using unilateral peak nasal inspiratory flow and acoustic rhinometry minimal cross‐sectional area measurements

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 518-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Fan Min Tan ◽  
Katherine Lisa Whitcroft ◽  
Nishchay Mehta ◽  
Anne Schilder ◽  
Terence S. Leung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inspiratory Flow ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Acoustic Rhinometry ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Nasal Cycle ◽  
Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow

scholarly journals A comparison of minimal cross sectional areas, nasal volumes and peak nasal inspiratory flow between patients with obstructive sleep apnea and healthy controls

2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 342-347
Author(s):  
M.H.S. Moxness ◽  
V. Bugten ◽  
W.M. Thorstensen ◽  
S. Nordgard ◽  
G. Bruskeland
Keyword(s):  
Nasal Cavity ◽  
Inspiratory Flow ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cavity Volume ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Mean ◽  
And Function ◽  
Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow

Background: The differences in nasal geometry and function between OSA patients and healthy individuals are not known. Our aim was to evaluate the differences in nasal geometry and function using acoustic rhinometry (AR) and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) between an OSA population and healthy controls. Methodology: The study was designed as a prospective case-control study. Ninety-three OSA patients and 92 controls were enrolled from 2010 to 2015. The minimal cross-sectional area (MCA) and the nasal cavity volume (NCV) in two parts of the nose (MCA0-3/NCV0-3 and MCA3-5.2/NCV3-5.2) and PNIF were measured at baseline and after decongestion. Results: The mean MCA0-3 in the OSA group was 0.49 cm2; compared to 0.55 cm2 in controls. The mean NCV0-3 correspondingly was 2.51 cm3 compared to 2.73 cm3 in controls. PNIF measured 105 litres/minute in the OSA group and 117 litres/minute in the controls. Conclusions: OSA patients have a lower minimum cross-sectional area, nasal cavity volume and peak inspiratory flow compared to controls. Our study supports the view that changes in the nasal cavity may contribute to development of OSA.

Effects of the Breathe Right Nasal Strips on Nasal Ventilation

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 399-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Gosepath ◽  
Wolf J. Mann ◽  
Ronald G. Amedee
Keyword(s):  
Nasal Cavity ◽  
Physical Performance ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Acoustic Rhinometry ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Nasal Breathing ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Subjective Impression ◽  
Breathe Right Nasal Strips ◽  
And Training

The Breathe Right nasal strips are more and more commonly used, mainly by athletes, who hope to enhance their physical performance in competition and training. The effect of the device in such situations is uncertain and perhaps somewhat controversial. To investigate the effects of the nasal strips on nasal ventilation, 20 Caucasian individuals were objectively assessed using anterior rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry. The results showed a significant increase in all subjects of transnasal airflow and in the average cross-sectional area of the nasal cavity that quantifies objectively the subjective impression of improved nasal breathing. In such patients where an improvement in nasal ventilation is desired, the use of the Breathe Right nasal strips seems to offer a beneficial treatment.

scholarly journals Intra- and Intersession Reliability of Acoustic Rhinometry in Measuring Nasal Cross-sectional Area

2001 ◽  
Vol 80 (8) ◽  
pp. 536-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole E. Ognibene ◽  
Mark A. Merrick ◽  
Christopher D. Ingersoll
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Acoustic Rhinometry ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional

Acoustic Rhinometric Assessment of the Nasal Valve

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 379-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renato Roithmann ◽  
Jerry Chapnik ◽  
Noe Zamel ◽  
Sergio Menna Barreto ◽  
Philip Cole
Keyword(s):  
Cross Section ◽  
Nasal Obstruction ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Acoustic Rhinometry ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Nasal Valve ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Nasal Cavities ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Valve Area

The aims of this study are to assess nasal valve cross-sectional areas in healthy noses and in patients with nasal obstruction after rhinoplasty and to evaluate the effect of an external nasal dilator on both healthy and obstructive nasal valves. Subjects consisted of (i) volunteers with no nasal symptoms, nasal cavities unremarkable to rhinoscopy and normal nasal resistance and (ii) patients referred to our clinic complaining of postrhinoplasty nasal obstruction. All subjects were tested before and after topical decongestion of the nasal mucosa and with an external nasal dilator. In 79 untreated healthy nasal cavities the nasal valve area showed two constrictions: the proximal constriction averaged 0.78 cm2 cross-section and was situated 1.18 cm from the nostril, the distal constriction averaged 0.70 cm2 cross-section at 2.86 cm from the nostril. Mucosal decongestion increased cross-sectional area of the distal constriction significantly (p < 0.0001) but not the proximal. External dilation increased cross-sectional area of both constrictions significantly (p < 0.0001). In 26 post-rhinoplasty obstructed nasal cavities, only a single constriction was detected, averaging 0.34 cm2 cross-section at 2.55 cm from the nostril and 0.4 cm2 at 2.46 cm from the nostril, before and after mucosal decongestion respectively. External dilation increased the minimum cross-sectional area to 0.64 cm2 in these nasal cavities (p < 0.0001). We conclude that the nasal valve area in patients with postrhinoplasty nasal obstruction is significantly smaller than in healthy nasal cavities as shown by acoustic rhinometry. Acoustic rhinometry objectively determines the structural and mucovascular components of the nasal valve area and external dilation is an effective therapeutical approach in the management of nasal valve obstruction.

scholarly journals Does Cosmetic Rhinoplasty Affect Nose Function?

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyed Behzad Pousti ◽  
Sam Touisserkani ◽  
Maryam Jalessi ◽  
Seyed Kamran Kamrava ◽  
Nader Sadigh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Acoustic Rhinometry ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Nasal Patency ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Double Osteotomy ◽  
Cosmetic Rhinoplasty ◽  
The Cross

Objective. To evaluate the changes in nasal dimensions of healthy Iranian volunteered for cosmetic rhinoplasty after surgery using acoustic rhinometry. Methods. Pre- and postoperative nasal dimension of 36 cases undergoing cosmetic rhinoplasty were compared using acoustic rhinometry (AR), and the measured variables were distance to first and second constriction (d1, d2), first and second minimal cross-sectional area (MCA1, 2), and volume. Results. Mean age (SD) of cases were 24.63 (4.4) years. Septoplasty was performed in 12 cases (33.3%). After surgery, bilateral d1 and both MCA2 decreased significantly, while significant increase was observed in MCA1 postoperatively using decongestant. Cases with septoplasty experienced more increase in MCA1 and less constriction in MCA2 postoperatively. In cases with rhinoplasty alone, they received benefit from double osteotomy in MCA1. In either group of rhinoplasty with and without septoplasty, placing a strut was beneficial for patients. Discussion. The cross-sectional area of the nose is a major factor in the determination of airflow. Cosmetic rhinoplasty may generate a mix effect on nose function. Performing osteotomy may better help patients to save nasal patency, septoplasty is beneficial even in mildly deviated septums, and placing a strut may be beneficial in most of the cases.

Reference Values for Acoustic Rhinometry in Subjects without Nasal Symptoms

1998 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 341-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Millqvist ◽  
Mats Bende
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Reference Values ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Acoustic Rhinometry ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Nasal Symptoms

Reference values for acoustic rhinometry are presented from 334 individuals without nasal symptoms between 4 years and 61 years old. There was a significant correlation between the minimal cross-sectional area (MCA) and nasal volume. Although the reproducibility of the method was good, the MCA varied widely. MCA correlated weakly to weight, height, age, and body mass index. Our data suggest that acoustic rhinometry is valuable for inter-individual comparisons.

Nasoantral window assessment by acoustic rhinometry

1994 ◽  
Vol 108 (7) ◽  
pp. 567-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Marais ◽  
A. G. D. Maran
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Acoustic Rhinometry ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Nasal Cavities

AbstractTwenty-five patients who had each had inferior meatal antrostomies performed were endoscopically examined and assessed with acoustic rhinometry six weeks and six months after surgery. No significant increase in nasal cross-sectional area could be demonstrated at the site of the antrostomy in the post-operative cases, although the nasoantral window was found to be patent in 44 of the 50 nasal cavities.

Septoplasty and compensatory inferior turbinate hypertrophy: a randomized study evaluated by acoustic rhinometry

1993 ◽  
Vol 107 (5) ◽  
pp. 413-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. F. Grymer ◽  
P. Illum ◽  
O. Hilberg
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Study ◽  
Inferior Turbinate ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Septal Deviation ◽  
Acoustic Rhinometry ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Turbinate Hypertrophy ◽  
Inferior Turbinate Hypertrophy ◽  
Turbinate Reduction

The present study deals with the indication for inferior turbinate surgery in cases of concomitant anterior septal deviation. We define, by acoustic rhinometry, the characteristics of the obstructed nose and define mucosal turbinate hypertrophy. A random sample of 80 patients with nasal obstruction and anteriorly located septal deviation were objectively evaluated by acoustic rhinometry pre– and post–operatively. All had septoplasty and half were randomly selected to have anterior inferior turbinoplasty performed in the side opposite to the major septal deviation. Severe septal deviation, expressed by a minimal cross–sectional area less than 0.4 cm2 was present in 37 patients. In this group inferior turbinate reduction seems advisable. In the wide side, the minimal cross–sectional area and the cross–sectional areas at 3.3 and 4.0 cm from the nostrils increased in the turbinectomy group and decreased in the non–turbinectomy group after correction of the septal deviation. In the group with less pronounced septal deviation no influence of turbinate reduction could be detected.

Acoustic rhinometry in humans: accuracy of nasal passage area estimates, and ability to quantify paranasal sinus volume and ostium size

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 616-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erkan Tarhan ◽  
Mehmet Coskun ◽  
Ozcan Cakmak ◽  
Hüseyin Çelik ◽  
Mehmet Cankurtaran
Keyword(s):  
Nasal Cavity ◽  
Paranasal Sinus ◽  
Helmholtz Resonator ◽  
Side Branch ◽  
Cross Sectional Area ◽  
Acoustic Rhinometry ◽  
Nasal Passage ◽  
Sectional Area ◽  
Distance Curve ◽  
Cross Sectional

A comprehensive study that compared acoustic rhinometry (AR) data to computed tomography (CT) data was performed to evaluate the accuracy of AR measurements in estimating nasal passage area and to assess its ability of quantifying paranasal sinus volume and ostium size in live humans. Twenty nasal passages of 10 healthy adults were examined by using AR and CT. Actual cross-sectional areas of the nasal cavity, sinus ostia sizes, and maxillary and frontal sinus volumes were determined from CT sections perpendicular to the curved acoustic axis of the nasal passage. Nasal cavity volume (from nostril to choana) calculated from the AR-derived area-distance curve was compared with that from the CT-derived area-distance curve. AR measurements were also done on pipe models that featured a side branch (Helmholtz resonator of constant volume but two different neck diameters) simulating a paranasal sinus. In the anterior nasal cavity, there was good agreement between the cross-sectional areas determined by AR and CT. However, posterior to the sinus ostia, AR overestimated cross-sectional area. The difference between AR nasal volume and CT nasal volume was much smaller than the combined volume of the maxillary and frontal sinuses. The results suggest that AR measurements of the healthy adult nasal cavity are reasonably accurate to the level of the paranasal sinus ostia. Beyond this point, AR overestimates cross-sectional area and provides no quantitative data for sinus volume or ostium size. The effects of paranasal sinuses and acoustic resonances in the nasal cavity are not accounted for in the present AR algorithms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document