gms | German Medical Science

76th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery

German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery

04.05. - 08.05.2005, Erfurt

Article

Send article

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

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • 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

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.egms.de/en/meetings/hno2005/05hno009.shtml

Published: September 22, 2005

© 2005 Wüstenberg et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.

Outline

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.