Comparison of anatomic, physiological, and subjective measures of the nasal airway

American Journal of Rhinology

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 463-470

  Lam, Derek J ^a   James, Kathryn T ^a,b   Weaver, Edward M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AIRWAY; ANATOMY; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; EXPERIENCE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INHALATION; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NOSE AIRFLOW; NOSE CAVITY; NOSE OBSTRUCTION; PHYSIOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RACE; RESPIRATORY TRACT PARAMETERS; RHINOMETRY; SEX; SLEEP APNEA SYNDROME; SMOKING; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SUPINE POSITION; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AIRWAY RESISTANCE; COHORT STUDIES; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NASAL CAVITY; NASAL OBSTRUCTION; NOSE; PAIN MEASUREMENT; POSTURE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PULMONARY VENTILATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RHINOMETRY, ACOUSTIC; SUPINE POSITION;

EID: 33750039622     PISSN: 10506586     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2500/ajr.2006.20.2940     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Hilberg O, Jackson AC, Swift DL, et al. Acoustic rhinometry: Evaluation of nasal cavity geometry by acoustic reflection. J Appl Physiol 66:295-303, 1989.
2. Dunagan D, and Georgitis J. Intranasal disease and provocation. In Diagnostic Testing of Allergic Disease, Vol. 15. Kemp S, Lockey R (Eds). New York: Marcel Dekker, 151-173, 2000.
3. Hilberg O, Jensen FT, and Pedersen OF. Nasal airway geometry: Comparison between acoustic reflections and magnetic resonance scanning. J Appl Physiol 75:2811-2819, 1993.
4. Corey JP, Gungor A, Nelson R, et al. A comparison of the nasal cross-sectional areas and volumes obtained with acoustic rhinometry and magnetic resonance imaging. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:349-354, 1997.
5. Corey JP, Nalbone VP, and Ng BA. Anatomic correlates of acoustic rhinometry as measured by rigid nasal endoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 121:572-576, 1999.
6. Holmstrom M, Scadding GK, Lund VJ, et al. Assessment of nasal obstruction. A comparison between rhinomanometry and nasal inspiratory peak flow. Rhinology 28:191-196, 1990.
7. Jones AS, Viani L, Phillips D, et al. The objective assessment of nasal patency. Clin Otolaryngol 16:206-211, 1991.
8. Wihl JA, and Malm L. Rhinomanometry and nasal peak expiratory and inspiratory flow rate. Ann Allergy 61:50-55, 1998.
9. Min YG, and Jan YJ. Measurements of cross-sectional area of the nasal cavity by acoustic rhinometry and CT scanning. Laryngoscope 105:757-759, 1995.
10. Mamikoglu B, Houser S, Akbar I, et al. Acoustic rhinometry and computed tomography scans for the diagnosis of nasal septal deviation, with clinical correlation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123:61-68, 2000.
11. Terheyden H, Maune S, Mertens J, et al. Acoustic rhinometry: Validation by three-dimensionally reconstructed computer tomographic scans. J Appl Physiol 89:1013-1021, 2000.
12. Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL, et al. Development and validation of the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130:157-163, 2004.
13. Weaver EM, Kapur V, and Yueh B. Polysomnography vs self-reported measures in patients with sleep apnea. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130:453-458, 2004.
14. Weaver EM, Woodson BT, and Stewart DL. Polysomnography indexes are discordant with quality of life, symptoms, and reaction times in sleep apnea patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132:255-262, 2005.
15. Stewart MG, Sicard MW, Piccirillo JF, et al. Severity staging in chronic sinusitis: Are CT scan findings related to patient symptoms? Am J Rhinol 13:161-167, 1999.
16. Numminen J, Dastidar P, and Rautiainen M. Influence of sinus surgery in rhinometric measurements. J Otolaryngol 33:98-103, 2004.
17. Velanovich V, and Karmy-Jones R. Measuring gastroesophageal reflux disease: relationship between the health-related quality of life and physiologic parameters. Am Surg 64:649-653, 1998.
18. DiBaise JK, Lof J, and Quigley EMM. Can symptoms predict esophageal motor function or acid exposure in gastroesophageal reflux disease? J Clin Gastroenterol 32:128-132, 2001.
19. Brand PL, Duiverman EJ, Waalkens HJ, et al. Peak flow variation in childhood asthma: Correlation with symptoms, airways obstruction, and hyperresponsiveness during longterm treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. Dutch CNSLD study group. Thorax 54:103-107, 1999.
20. Wiklund I, Comerford MB, and Dimenas E. The relationship between exercise tolerance and quality of life in angina pectoris. Clin Cardiol 14:204-208, 1991.
21. Stewart MG, and Smith TL. Outcomes assessment in rhinology. Am J Rhinology 19:529-535, 2005.
22. Fairley JW, Durham LH, and Ell SR. Correlation of subjective sensation of nasal patency with nasal inspiratory peak flow rate. Clin Otolaryngol 18:19-22, 1993.
23. Wang DY, Raza MT, Goh DYT, et al. Acoustic rhinometry in nasal allergen challenge study: which dimensional measures are meaningful? Clin Exp Allergy 34:1093-1098, 2004.
24. Larsen K, and Kristensen S. Peak flow nasal patency indices and self-assessment in septoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 15:327-334, 1990.
25. Roithmann R, Cole P, Chapnik J, et al. Acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry, and the sensation of nasal patency: a correlative study. J Otolaryngol 23:454-458, 1994.
26. Hilberg O, and Pedersen OF. Acoustic rhinometry: Recommendations for technical specifications and standard operating procedures. Rhinol Suppl 16:3-17, 2000.
27. Fisher EW, Morris DP, Biemans JM, et al. Practical aspects of acoustic rhinometry: Problems and solutions. Rhinology 33: 219-223, 1995.
28. Parvez L, Erasala G, and Noronha A. Novel techniques, standardization tools to enhance reliability of acoustic rhinometry measurements. Rhinol Suppl 16:18-28, 2000.
29. Wilson AM, Fowler SJ, Martin SW, et al. Evaluation of the importance of head and probe stabilisation in acoustic rhinometry. Rhinology 39:93-97, 2001.
30. Tomkinson A, and Eccles R. Acoustic rhinometry: Do we need a standardized operating procedure? Clin Otolaryngol 21:284-287, 1996.
31. Cho SI, Hauser R, and Christiani DC. Reproducibility of nasal peak inspiratory flow among healthy adults. Chest 112:1547-1553, 1997.
32. Starling-Schwanz R, Peake HL, Salome CM, et al. Repeatability of peak nasal inspiratory flow measurements and utility for assessing the severity of rhinitis. Allergy 60:795-800, 2005.
33. Frolund L, Madsen F, Mygind N, et al. Comparison between different techniques for measuring nasal patency in a group of unselected patients. Acta Otolaryngol 104:175-179, 1987.
34. Corey JP, Gungor A, Nelson R, et al. Normative standards for nasal cross-sectional areas by race as measured by acoustic rhinometry. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 199:389-393, 1998.
35. Millqvist E, and Bende M. Reference values for acoustic rhinometry in subjects without nasal symptoms. Am J Rhinol 12:341-343, 1998.
36. Grymer LF, Hilberg O, Pedersen OF, and Rasmussen TR. Acoustic rhinometry: Values from adults with subjective normal nasal patency. Rhinology 29:35-47, 1991.
37. Ozturk F, Turktas I, Asal K, et al. Effect of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide on bronchial hyper-responsiveness in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis and comparison of perceptional nasal obstruction with acoustic rhinometric assessment. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 68:1007-1015, 2004.
38. Larsson C, Millqvist E, and Bende M. Relationship between subjective nasal stuffiness and nasal patency measured by acoustic rhinometry. Am J Rhinol 15:403-405, 2001.
39. Pirila T, and Tikanto J. Unilateral and bilateral effects of nasal septum surgery demonstrated with acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry, and subjective assessment. Am J Rhinol 15:127-133, 2001.
40. Jose J, and Ell SR. The association of subjective nasal patency with peak inspiratory nasal flow in a large healthy population. Clin Otolaryngol 28:352-354, 2003.
41. Clarke JD, Hopkins ML, and Eccles R. Evidence for correlation of objective and subjective measures of nasal airflow in patients with common cold. Clin Otolaryngol 30:35-38, 2005.
42. Sipila J, Suonpaa J, Silvoniemi P, et al. Correlations between subjective sensation of nasal patency and rhinomanometry in both unilateral and total nasal assessment. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 57:260-263, 1995.
43. Hirschberg A, and Rezek O. Correlation between objective and subjective assessments of nasal patency. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 60:206-211, 1998.
44. Lund VJ. Objective assessment of nasal obstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 22:279-290, 1989.
45. Phagoo SB, Watson RA, and Pride NB. Use of nasal peak flow to assess nasal patency. Allergy 52:901-908, 1997.
46. Piccirillo JF, Gates GA, White DL, et al. Obstructive sleep apnea treatment outcomes pilot study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 118:833-844, 1998.
47. Weaver TE. Outcome measurement in sleep medicine practice and research. Part I: assessment of symptoms, subjective and objective daytime sleepiness, health-related quality of life, and functional status. Sleep Med Rev 5:103-128, 2001.
48. Finalyson TL, Moyer CA, and Sonnad SS. Assessing symptoms, disease severity, and quality of life in the clinical context: A theoretical framework. Am J Manag Care 10:336-344, 2004.