European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 269, Issue 10, pp 2189–2195 | Cite as

Assessment of nasal septoplasty using NOSE and RhinoQoL questionnaires

  • Michel Mondina
  • Magali Marro
  • Sylvie Maurice
  • Dominique Stoll
  • Ludovic de Gabory


The objective was to assess outcomes of nasal septoplasty without turbinectomy using validated subjective instruments and to correlate results with patient satisfaction. The prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary referral center. The method included the use of NOSE and RhinoQoL questionnaires to assess patients before and 6 months after Cottle septoplasty without turbinectomy. Patient satisfaction was measured on a visual analog scale. Data were compared by the non-parametric Wilcoxon test. Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCIDs) were calculated. Correlations between post-operative scores and patient satisfaction were assessed using the Spearman test. Univariate analysis was performed to assess predictors of improvement. One hundred patients were enrolled. Their mean age was 43.4 years and 28% had allergic rhinitis. There was a highly significant improvement in each score at 6 months (p < 0.00001). The MCID for the NOSE was comprised between 5 and 7.5, whereas the mean change was 35.2 points. They ranged from 3.8 to 6.1 for RhinoQoL scores, whereas mean changes were comprised between 12.6 and 20.9. Allergic rhinitis was a predictive factor of less improvement (NOSE p = 0.04–RhinoQoL p = 0.0001). Mean patient satisfaction was 8.2 ± 1.8. Post-operative NOSE and RhinoQoL frequency scores were moderately correlated (r = 0.380; r = 0.356, respectively) whereas bothersomeness and impact scores were highly correlated with patient satisfaction (r = 0.459; r = 0.443, p < 0.00001, respectively). This study shows that the NOSE and RhinoQoL questionnaires can be used in English- and French-speaking populations to perform pre- and post-therapeutic assessment. These validated instruments show that septoplasty without turbinectomy allows management of nasal obstruction and its burden.


Quality of life Outcome Nasal surgery Septoplasty Nasal obstruction 



The authors would like to thank Dr Ray Cooke for linguistic assistance.

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Jessen M, Ivarsson A, Malm L (1989) Nasal airway resistance and symptoms after functional septoplasty: comparison of findings at 9 months and 9 years. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 14(3):231–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peacock MR (1981) Sub-mucous resection of the nasal septum. J Laryngol Otol 95(4):341–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Samad I, Stevens HE, Maloney A (1992) The efficacy of nasal septal surgery. J Otolaryngol 21:88–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siegel N, Gliklich RE, Taghizadeh F, Chang Y (2000) Outcomes of septoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 122(2):228–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dinis PB, Haider H (2002) Septoplasty: long-term evaluation of results. Am J Otolaryngol 23:85–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stewart MG, Simth TL, Weaver EM et al (2004) Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130(3):283–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harrill WC, Pillsbury HC, McGuirt WF, Stewart MG (2007) Radiofrequency turbinate reduction: a NOSE evaluation. Laryngoscope 117:1912–1919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Uppal S, Mistry H, Nadig S, Back G, Coatesworth A (2005) Evaluation of patient benefit from nasal septal surgery for nasal obstruction. Auris Nasus Larynx 32:129–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    André RF, Vuyk HD, Ahmed A, Graamans K, Nolst Trenité GJ (2009) Correlation between subjective and objective evaluation of the nasal airway. A systematic review of the highest level of evidence. Clin Otolaryngol 34:518–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Truilhe Y, Stoll D (2000) Nasal comfort and Cottle septoplasty. Prospective acoustic rhinometry study apropos of 102 cases. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 121(4):219–225Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carney AS, Bateman ND, Jones NS (2000) Reliable and reproducible anterior active rhinomanometry for the assessment of unilateral nasal resistance. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 25(6):499–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blomgren K, Simola M, Hytönen M, Pitkäranta A (2003) Peak nasal inspiratory and expiratory flow measurements—practical tools in primary care? Rhinology 41(4):206–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boyce JM, Eccles R (2006) Assessment of subjective scales for selection of patients for nasal septal surgery. Clin Otolaryngol 31(4):297–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singh A, Patel N, Kenyon G, Donaldson G (2006) Is there objective evidence that septal surgery improves nasal airflow? J Laryngol Otol 120(11):916–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arunachalam PS, Kitcher E, Gray J, Wilson JA (2001) Nasal septal surgery: evaluation of symptomatic and general health outcomes. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 26:367–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stewart MG, Witsell DL, Smith TL, Weaver EM, Yueh B, Hannley MT (2004) Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 130(2):157–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Atlas SJ, Gallagher PM, Wu YA et al (2005) Development and validation of a new health-related quality of life instrument for patients with sinusitis. Qual Life Res 14(5):1375–1386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Atlas SJ, Metson RB, Singer DE, Wu YA, Gliklich RE (2005) Validity of a new health-related quality of life instrument for patients with chronic sinusitis. Laryngoscope 115(5):846–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marro M, Mondina M, Stoll D, de Gabory L (2011) French Validation of the NOSE and RhinoQoL questionnaires in the management of nasal obstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 144(6):988–993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brozek JL, Bousquet J, Baena-Cagnani CE et al (2010) Allergic Rhinitis and its impact of asthma (ARIA) guidelines:2010 Revision. J Allergy Clin Immunol 126(3):466–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR, The Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group (2002) Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 77(4):371–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Konstantinidis I, Triaridis S, Triaridis A, Karagiannidis K, Kontzoglou G (2005) Long term results following nasal septal surgery focus on patient’s satisfaction. Auris Nasus Larynx 32:369–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwentner I, Dejakum K, Schmutzhard J, Deibl M, Sprinzl G (2006) Does nasal septal surgery improve quality of life? Acta Otolaryngol 126(7):752–757PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grymer LF, Illum P, Hilberg O (1993) Septoplasty and compensatory inferior turbinate hypertrophy: a randomized study evaluated by acoustic rhinometry. J Laryngol Otol 107(5):413–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Illum P (1997) Septoplasty and compensatory inferior turbinate hypertrophy: long-term results after randomized turbinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 254(Suppl1):S89–S92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lindemann J, Tsakiropoulou E, Konstantinidis I, Lindemann K (2010) Normal aging does not deteriorate nose-related quality of life: Assessment with “NOSE” and “SNOT-20” questionnaires. Auris Nasus Larynx 37(3):303–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karatzanis AD, Fragiadakis G, Moshandrea J, Zenk J, Iro H, Velegrakis GA (2009) Septoplasty outcome in patients with and without allergic rhinitis. Rhinology 47(4):444–449PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bousquet J, Neukirch F, Bousquet PJ et al (2006) Severity and impairment of allergic rhinitis in patients consulting in primary care. J Allergy Clin Immunol 117(1):158–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berger G, Hammel I, Berger R, Avraham S, Ophir D (2000) Histopathology of the inferior turbinate with compensatory hypertrophy in patients with deviated nasal septum. Laryngoscope 110:2100–2105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Doorly DJ, Taylor DJ, Gambaruto AM, Schroter RC, Toiley N (2008) Nasal architecture: form and flow. Philos Trans R Soc A 366:3225–3246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel Mondina
    • 1
  • Magali Marro
    • 1
  • Sylvie Maurice
    • 2
  • Dominique Stoll
    • 1
  • Ludovic de Gabory
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck surgeryUniversity Hospital of BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Biostatistics DepartmentUniversité Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2BordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations