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


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 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  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