gms | German Medical Science

76. Jahresversammlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie e. V.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie e. V.

04.05. - 08.05.2005, Erfurt

Artikel

Artikel empfehlen

Comparison of optical rhinometry and active anterior rhinomanometry in nasal provocation test

Meeting Abstract

Suche in Medline nach

  • corresponding author Eike Wüstenberg - ENT-Clinic, Dresden University, Dresden
  • Bettina Hauswald - ENT-Clinic, Dresden University, Dresden
  • Thomas Zahnert - ENT-Clinic, Dresden University, Dresden

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie. 76. Jahresversammlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie e.V.. Erfurt, 04.-08.05.2005. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2005. Doc05hno033

Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist vollständig und ist verfügbar unter: http://www.egms.de/de/meetings/hno2005/05hno009.shtml

Veröffentlicht: 22. September 2005

© 2005 Wüstenberg et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de). Er darf vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.

Gliederung

Text

Background: Active anterior rhinomanometry (RMM) is routinely used for assessment of the nasal provocation test. It is an established method to measure nasal patency. Optical rhinometry (ORM), a newly developed technique, is based on light extinction by nasal tissue and allows the continuous measurement of nasal congestion.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a correlation between RMM and ORM data in the detection of changes in nasal congestion.

Methods: In 66 healthy subjects both ORM and RMM were performed. Changes in nasal congestion were induced by nasal provocation with histamine or allergens and xylometazoline 0.1%. Subjects also using visual analogue scales subjects also rated 1) the degree of nasal congestion and 2) how comfortable each of the two measures was.

Results: When comparing the change in light extinction in ORM with nasal air flow in RMM a correlation up to r=-.75 was found. Results from RMM were significantly correlated with the subjects’ ratings of nasal congestion (r=-.74). In comparison, results from ORM exhibited a higher correlation to these ratings (r=.89). Further, ORM was rated to be more comfortable than RMM.

Conclusion: ORM allows real-time assessment of changes in nasal congestion. The subjects’ ratings of nasal congestion exhibit a higher correlation with the results form ORM than those from RMM. In addition, ORM is rated as more comfortable than RMM. Overall, ORM appears to be a validated technique for the assessment of changes in nasal congestion.