Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:25:36.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of a nasal surgical questionnaire designed for monitoring surgical outcomes and comparing different techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2015

R Haye ,
L K Døsen ,
O Shiryaeva  and
E Amlie
R Haye*
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway
L K Døsen
Affiliation:
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway
O Shiryaeva
Affiliation:
Department of Quality, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway
E Amlie
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Oslo, Norway
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Rolf Haye, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, 0440 Oslo, Norway Fax: 0047 23225646 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This study evaluated a nasal surgical questionnaire designed for monitoring surgical outcomes and comparing different techniques.

Methods:

Eighty-three healthy volunteers answered the same questionnaire twice with a minimum interval of five weeks. Three visual analogue scale items were used to assess nasal obstruction during the day, at night and during exercise. Respondents rated nasal obstruction severity by marking on a 10 cm line, with scores ranging from 0 to 100 (measured in millimetres). Other nasal symptoms, considered secondary outcomes, were graded using four-point Likert scales.

Results:

Mean visual analogue scale scores for nasal obstruction severity experienced during the day, at night and during exercise at initial assessment were 9.99, 12.95 and 11.67, respectively. Thirty-eight per cent of scores indicated no obstruction (scores of 0), 47 per cent indicated mild obstruction (scores 1–30), 13 per cent indicated moderate obstruction (scores 31–70) and 2 per cent indicated severe obstruction (scores 71–100). Males had higher scores than females. The scores for the first and second assessment did not differ, except at night for obstruction in allergic individuals which was considered clinically unimportant.

Conclusion:

The questionnaire reliably assesses nasal symptoms and may be useful for prospective studies of nasal surgery.

Keywords

Nasal ObstructionVisual Analog Scale
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 129 , Issue 7 , July 2015 , pp. 656 - 661
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Holmstrøm, M. The use of objective measures in selecting patients for septal surgery. Rhinology 2010;48:387–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Mora, F, Cassano, M, Mora, R, Gallina, AM, Ciprandi, G. V.A.S. in the follow-up of turbinectomy. Rhinology 2009;47:450–3Google ScholarPubMed
3Simola, M, Malmberg, H. Sensations of nasal airflow compared with nasal airway resistance in patients with rhinitis. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1997;22:260–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Tompos, T, Garai, T, Zemplén, B. Sensation of nasal patency compared to rhinomanometric results after septoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;267:1887–91CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Morrissey, MS, Alun-Jones, T, Hill, J. The relationship of peak inspiratory airflow to subjective airflow in the nose. Clin Otolaryngol 1990;15:447–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Kim, CS, Moon, BK, Jung, DH, Min, Y-G. Correlation between nasal obstruction symptoms and objective parameters of acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry. Auris Nasus Larynx 1998;25:45–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Panagou, P, Loukides, S, Tsipra, S, Syrigou, K, Anastasakis, C, Kalogeropoulos, N. Evaluation of nasal patency: comparison of patient and clinician assessments with rhinomanometry. Acta Otolaryngol 1998;118:847–51Google ScholarPubMed
8Stewart, MG, Smith, TL, Weaver, EM, Witsell, DL, Yueh, B, Hannley, MT et al. Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:283–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Gandomi, B, Bayat, A, Kazemei, T. Outcomes of septoplasty in young adults: the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;31:189–92Google ScholarPubMed
10Kjærgaard, T, Cvancarova, M, Steinsvåg, SK. Does nasal obstruction mean that the nose is obstructed? Laryngoscope 2008;118:1476–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Akduman, D, Yanilmaz, M, Haksever, M, Döner, F, Sayar, Z. Patients’ evaluation for the surgical management of nasal obstruction. Rhinology 2013;51:361–7Google ScholarPubMed
12van Spronsen, E, Ingels, KJ, Jansen, AH, Graamans, K, Fokkens, WJ. Evidence-based recommendations regarding the differential diagnosis and assessment of nasal congestion: using the new GRADE system. Allergy 2008;63:820–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Lim, M, Lew-Gor, S, Darby, Y, Brookes, N, Scadding, G, Lund, VJ. The relationship between subjective assessment instruments in chronic rhinosinusitis. Rhinology 2007;45:144–7Google ScholarPubMed
14Stewart, MG, Witsell, DL, Smith, TL, Weaver, EM, Yueh, B, Hannley, MT. Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;130:157–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Bezerra, TF, Padua, FG, Pilan, RR, Stewart, MG, Voegels, RL. Cross-cultural adaption and validation of a quality of life questionnaire: the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation questionnaire. Rhinology 2011;49:227–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Bousquet, PJ, Combescure, C, Neukirch, F, Klossek, JM, Méchin, H, Daures, JP et al. Visual analog scales can assess the severity of rhinitis graded according to ARIA guidelines. Allergy 2007;62:367–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed