Advertisement

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 254, Issue 8, pp 387–390 | Cite as

A prospective study using rhinomanometry and patient clinical satisfaction to determine if objective measurements of nasal airway resistance can improve the quality of septoplasty

  • J. Sipilä
  • J. Suonpää
Original Paper

Abstract

In the ENT Department of University Central Hospital, Turku, the waiting list for elective septoplasty grew to 4 to 5 years in the late 1980s. Therefore, a prospective clinical project was initiated during which all patients waiting for septal surgery were re-examined and nasal airway function was measured with rhinomanometry. Patients with high nasal resistance or other specific indications for nasal obstruction were selected for surgery (n = 432). The remaining patients were excluded from surgery and followed up (n = 284). Results showed that if patients were referred for septal surgery without rhinomanometric study, about 10% became symptom-free within 3 to 5 years. Patients operated on after defining a high preoperative intranasal resistance had a higher postoperative satisfaction level (85%) than those operated on with normal nasal resistances but other indications for correcting the nasal septum (69%). After 3 years, the majority of patients not treated surgically were satisfied with their conservative treatments, although certain patients still required some form of nasal surgery to relieve recurring nasal and/or sinus complaints.

Key words

Rhinomanometry Septoplasty Postoperative clinical satisfaction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aschan G, Dretmer B, Rouge H (1958) A new technique for measuring nasal resistance to breathing, illustrated by the effects of histamine and physical effort. Ann Acad Reg Sci Ups 2:11–126Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachert C, Feldmeth B (1988) Die computerunterstützte Rhinomanometrie (CAR) HNO 36:277–281Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohlin L, Dahlqvist A (1994) Nasal airway resistance and complications following functional septoplasty: A ten-year follow-up study. Rhinology 32:195–197Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broms P, Jonson B, Malm L (1982) Rhinomanometry II. A system for numerical description of nasal airway resistance. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 94:157–168Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cole P, Chaban R, Naito K, Oprysk D (1988) The obstructive nasal septum. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 114:410–412Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dishoeck HAE van (1963) The part of the valve and the turbinates in total nasal resistance. Int Rhinol 3:19–26Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dommerby H, Rasmussen O, Rosborg J (1985) Long-term results of septoplastic operations. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 47:151–157Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gordon A, McCaffrey T, Kern E, Pallanch J (1989) Rhinomanometry for preoperative and postoperative assessment of nasal obstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 101:20–26Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jessen M, Malm L (1984) The importance of nasal airway resistance and nasal symptoms in the selection of patients for septoplasty. Rhinology 22:157–164Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jessen M, Malm L (1991) The spontaneous course of nasal obstruction in patients with normal nasal airway resistance. Clin Otolaryngol 16:302–304Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mertz J, McCaffrey T, Kern E (1984) Objective evaluation of anterior septal surgical reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 92:308–311Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mygind N (1979) Nasal allergy, 2nd edn. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mygind P (1980) Measurement of nasal airway resistance — is it only for article writers? (editorial). Clin Otolaryngol 5:161–163Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Naito K, Cole P, Chaban R, Oprysk D (1988) Nasal resistance, sensation of obstruction and rhinoscopic findings compared. Am J Rhinol 2:65–69Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pinkpank A (1986) Beziehungen zwischen Selbsteinstufung der Nasenatmung, Rhinoskopie und Rhinomanometrie. HNO 34:194–197Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simola M, Bliss L, Holopainen E, Malmberg H (1991) Longterm clinical course of hypersensitive rhinitis. Rhinol 29:301–306Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sipilä J, Suonpää J, Salmivalli A, Laippala P (1990) The effect of the nasal cycle on the interpretation of rhinomanometric results in a nasal provocation test. Am J Rhinol 4:179–184Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sipilä J, Suonpää J, Kortekangas A, Laippala P (1992) A new Finnish computerized rhinomanometer. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockh) 492:58–62Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sipilä J, Suonpää J, Laippala P (1992) Rhinomanometry before septoplasty. An approach to clinical material with diverse nasal symptoms. Am J Rhinol 6:17–22Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suonpää J, Sipilä J, Laippala P (1993) Do rhinomanometric findings predict subjective postoperative satisfaction? A longterm follow-up after septoplasty. (1993) Am J Rhinol 7:71–75Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vainio-Mattila J (1974) Correlations of nasal symptoms and signs in random sampling study. Thesis, University of Turku. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockh) 318:1–48Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wengraf CL, Gleeson MJ, Siodlak MZ (1986) The stuffy nose: a comparative study of two common methods of treatment. Clin Otolaryngol 11:61–68Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Sipilä
    • 1
  • J. Suonpää
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OtorhinolaryngologyUniversity Central Hospital of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations