European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 267, Issue 12, pp 1887–1891 | Cite as

Sensation of nasal patency compared to rhinomanometric results after septoplasty

  • Tamás Tompos
  • Tibor Garai
  • Béla Zemplén
  • Imre Gerlinger


The primary aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between the subjective sensation of nasal airflow resistance, the rhinoscopic findings and the objective measures of nasal obstruction in patients followed up after septoplasty. A further goal was to determine which of the above modalities is most suitable for assessment of the severity of nasal obstruction and which best indicates the need for surgery. 86 patients who had previously undergone septoplastic surgery were recruited. Objective and subjective measures of nasal obstruction were recorded by using active anterior rhinomanometry, rhinoscopy and a visual analogue scale. The Spearman rank order correlation model revealed a significant correlation between the VAS score and the airway resistance of the more obstructed nasal cavity (r = 0.24); furthermore, between the VAS score and rhinoscopic findings (r = 0.35). By applying the generalized linear model, we also found significant relation between the VAS score and the rhinomanometric data, and between the rhinoscopic findings and the airway resistance of the more obstructed nasal cavity (p = 0.02). The correlation between the subjective sensation of nasal airflow resistance, the rhinoscopic findings, and the rhinomanometric data proved to be significant, but weak even in the group of patients that underwent septoplasty. Every postoperative complaint should therefore be evaluated carefully. Rhinomanometry is an appropriate diagnostic tool with which to determine the measure of obstruction caused by nasal pathological factors. It is suitable for making objective the patients’ complaints. Rhinoscopy, beyond the assessment of the degree of obstruction, is capable of analysis of its cause. The decision as to the need for surgery should be based on rhinoscopy, or nasal endoscopy, and can be supported by pathologically elevated resistance of the more obstructed nasal cavity.


Nasal patency Rhinomanometry Rhinoscopy Subjective sensation Nasal airflow resistance Septoplasty 


Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Jones AS, Willatt DJ, Durham LM (1989) Nasal airflow resistance and sensation. J Laryngol Otol 103:909–911CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Panagou P, Loukides S, Tsipra S, Syrigou K, Anastasakis C, Kalogeropoulos N (1998) Evaluation of nasal patency: comparison of patient and clinician assessments with rhinomanometry. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 118:847–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yaniv E, Hadar T, Shvero J, Raveh E (1997) Objective and subjective nasal airflow. Am J Otolaryngol 18:29–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sipila J, Suonpaa J, Silvoniemi P, Laippala P (1995) Correlations between subjective sensation of nasal patency and rhinomanometry in both unilateral and total nasal assessment. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 57:260–263PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hirschberg A, Rezek O (1998) Correlation between objective and subjective assessments of nasal patency. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 60:206–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eccles R (1998) The relationship between subjective and objective measures of nasal function. Jpn J Rhinol 37:61–69Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sipila J, Suonpaa J, Laippala P (1994) Sensation of nasal obstruction compared to rhinomanometric results in patients referred for septoplasty. Rhinology 32:141–144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clement PAR (1984) Committee report on standardization of rhinomanometry. Rhinology 22:151–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arbour P, Kern EB (1975) Paradoxical nasal obstruction. Can J Otolaryngol 4:333PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roithmann R, Cole P, Chapnik J et al (1994) Acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry, and the sensation of nasal patency: a correlative study. J Otolaryngol 23:454–458PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Naito K, Cole P, Chaban R, Oprysk D (1988) Nasal resistance, sensation of obstruction and rhinoscopic findings compared. Am J Rhinol 2:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mc Caffrey TV, Kern EB (1991) Rhinomanometry and diagnosis of nasal obstruction. Facial Plast Surg 4:266–273Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clarke JD, Eccles R (2005) Paradoxical sensation of nasal airflow in patients with common cold. Are we measuring the correct modality? Acta Otolaryngol 125:1307–1311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamás Tompos
    • 1
  • Tibor Garai
    • 1
  • Béla Zemplén
    • 1
  • Imre Gerlinger
    • 2
  1. 1.ENT & Head and Neck Surgery DepartmentPetz Aladár County Teaching HospitalGyorHungary
  2. 2.Department of Otorhinolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery, Medical SchoolUniversity of PécsPecsHungary

Personalised recommendations