European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 274, Issue 8, pp 3121–3128 | Cite as

New CFD tools to evaluate nasal airflow

  • M. A. Burgos
  • E. Sanmiguel-Rojas
  • C. del PinoEmail author
  • M. A. Sevilla-García
  • F. Esteban-Ortega


Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a mathematical tool to analyse airflow. As currently CFD is not a usual tool for rhinologists, a group of engineers in collaboration with experts in Rhinology have developed a very intuitive CFD software. The program MECOMLAND® only required snapshots from the patient’s cross-sectional (tomographic) images, being the output those results originated by CFD, such as airflow distributions, velocity profiles, pressure, temperature, or wall shear stress. This is useful complementary information to cover diagnosis, prognosis, or follow-up of nasal pathologies based on quantitative magnitudes linked to airflow. In addition, the user-friendly environment NOSELAND® helps the medical assessment significantly in the post-processing phase with dynamic reports using a 3D endoscopic view. Specialists in Rhinology have been asked for a more intuitive, simple, powerful CFD software to offer more quality and precision in their work to evaluate the nasal airflow. We present MECOMLAND® and NOSELAND® which have all the expected characteristics to fulfil this demand and offer a proper assessment with the maximum of quality plus safety for the patient. These programs represent a non-invasive, low-cost (as the CT scan is already performed in every patient) alternative for the functional study of the difficult rhinologic case. To validate the software, we studied two groups of patients from the Ear Nose Throat clinic, a first group with normal noses and a second group presenting septal deviations. Wall shear stresses are lower in the cases of normal noses in comparison with those for septal deviation. Besides, velocity field distributions, pressure drop between nasopharynx and the ambient, and flow rates in each nostril were different among the nasal cavities in the two groups. These software modules open up a promising future to simulate the nasal airflow behaviour in virtual surgery intervention scenarios under different pressure or temperature conditions to understand the effects on nasal airflow.


Computational fluid dynamics Nasal cavity 3D model Airflow 



The authors acknowledge the access to the patient database of the University Hospital Virgen del Rocío of Sevilla (Spain). Authors also thank Medical Doctor Vania Nova Juiz and Fco. M. Piqueras Pérez from Hospital Morales Meseguer of Murcia (Spain) for their helpful comments to improve the programs MECOMLAND® and NOSELAND®.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Financial disclosure

None reported.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    André R, Vuyk H, Ahmed A, Graamans K, Nolst-Trenité G (2009) Correlation between subjective and objective evaluation of the nasal airway. a systematic review of the highest level of evidence. Clin Otolaryngol 34:518–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailie N, Hanna B, Watterson J, Gallagher G (2006) An overview of numerical modelling of nasal airflow. Rhinology 44:53–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burgos M, Sanmiguel-Rojas E, Martín-Alcántara A, Hidalgo-Martínez M (2014) Effects of the ambient temperature on the airflow across a caucasian nasal cavity. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng 30:430–445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen X, Lee H, Chong VH, Wang D (2009) Assessment of septal deviation effects on nasal air flow: a computational fluid dynamics model. Laryngoscope 119:1730–1736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cole P (2000) Biophysics of nasal airflow: a review. Am J Rhinol 14:245–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elad D, Naftali S, Rosenfeld M, Wolf M (2006) Physical stresses at the air-wall interface of the human nasal cavity during breathing. J Appl Physiol 100:1003–1010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farmer S, Eccles R (2007) Chronic inferior turbinate enlargement and the implications for surgical intervention. Rhinology 4:234–238Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fokkens W, Hellings P (2014) Objective measurements of nasal function: necessary before nasal surgery? Rhinology 52:289PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frank-Ito D, Kimbell J, Laud P, Garcia G, Rhee J (2014) Predicting post-surgery nasal physiology with computational modeling: current challenges and limitations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 151:751–759CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grant O, Bailie N, Watterson J, Cole J, Gallagher G, Hanna B (2004) Numerical model of a nasal septal perforation. Stud Health Technol Inform 107:1352–1356PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hahn I, Scherer P, Mozell M (1993) Velocity profiles measured for airflow through a large-scale model of the human nasal cavity. J App Physiol 75:2273–2287Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ishikawa S, Nakayama T, Watanabe M, Matsuzawa T (2006) Visualization of flow resistance in physiological nasal respiration: analysis of velocity and vorticities using numerical simulation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132:1203–1209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leong S, Chen X, Lee H, Wang D (2010) A review of the implications of computational fluid dynamic studies on nasal airflow and physiology. Rhinology 48:139–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lorensen W, Cline H (1987) Marching cubes: a high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm. ACM Comput Graph 21:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quadrio M, Pipolo C, Corti S, Lenzi R, Messina F, Pesci C, Felisati G (2014) Review of computational fluid dynamics in the assessment of nasal air flow and analysis of its limitations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271:2349–2354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor D, Doorly D, Schroter R (2010) Inflow boundary profile prescription for numerical simulation of nasal airflow. J R Soc Interface 151:751–759Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang D, Lee H, Gordon B (2012) Impacts of fluid dynamics simulation in study of nasal airflow physiology and pathophysiology in realistic human three-dimensional nose models. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 5:181–187CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang Y, Liu Y, Sun X, Yu S, Gao Y (2009) Numerical analysis of respiratory flow patterns within human upper airway. Acta Mech Sin 25:737–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weinhold I, Mlynski G (2004) Numerical simulation of airflow in the human nose. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 261:452–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wen J, Inthavong K, Tu J (2008) Numerical simulations for detailed airflow dynamics in a human nasal cavity. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 161:125–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xiong G, Zhan J, Jiang H, Li J, Rong L, Xu G (2008) Computational fluid dynamics simulation of airflow in the normal nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Am J Rhinol 22:477–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zachow S, Muigg P, Hildebrandt T, Doleisch H, Hege H (2009) Visual exploration of nasal airflow. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 15:1407–1414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhao K, Jiang J (2014) What is normal nasal airflow? A computational study of 22 healthy adults. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 4:435–446CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhao K, Pribitkin E, Cowart B, Rosen D, Scherer P, Dalton P (2006) Numerical modeling of nasal obstruction and endoscopic surgical intervention: outcome to airflow and olfaction. Am J Rhinol 20:308–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zubair M, Abdullah M, Ismail R, Shuaib I, Hamid S, Ahmad K (2011) Review: a critical overview of limitations of CFD modeling in nasal airflow. J Med Biol Eng 32:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeniería Térmica y de FluidosUniversidad Politécnica de CartagenaCartagenaSpain
  2. 2.Escuela de Ingenierías IndustrialesUniversidad de MálagaMálagaSpain
  3. 3.Departamento de OtorrinolaringologíaHospital Universitario Virgen del RocíoSevillaSpain

Personalised recommendations