Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:36:40.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A UK survey of current ENT practice in the assessment of nasal patency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2017

P Andrews ,
J Joseph ,
C-H Li ,
L Nip ,
T Jacques  and
T Leung
P Andrews
Affiliation:
Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK
J Joseph
Affiliation:
Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK
C-H Li
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, University College London, UK
L Nip
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, University College London, UK
T Jacques*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Queen's Hospital, Romford, UK
T Leung
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, University College London, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Thomas Jacques, Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, St. Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Nasal obstruction is a common ENT complaint; however, decisions on its management are challenging, with high rates of dissatisfaction following surgery. This study investigated the practice of UK clinicians in the evaluation of nasal patency.

Method:

Seventy-eight UK-based rhinologists were surveyed at the 2015 British Academic Conference in Otolaryngology.

Results:

Clinical history and examination are almost universally used to evaluate nasal blockage. The most commonly used test was the nasal misting pattern (73 per cent), followed by peak nasal inspiratory flow (19 per cent). The Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 or 23 was utilised by 29 per cent of respondents. Sixty-three per cent of respondents reported that a lack of equipment was the principle reason for not using objective measures, followed by time constraints and a lack of correlation with symptom scores.

Conclusion:

British clinicians rely on clinical skills to evaluate nasal blockage. There is a desire for a simple, non-invasive device that objectively measures airflow for nasal breathing during physiological resting and correlates with subjective symptom scores.

Keywords

NoseNasal CavityRhinoplastyNasal ObstructionSymptom Assessment
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 131 , Issue 8 , August 2017 , pp. 702 - 706
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

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

1 Jessen, M, Malm, L. Definition, prevalence and development of nasal obstruction. Allergy 1997;52:3–6 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Chandra, RK, Patadia, MO, Raviv, J. Diagnosis of nasal airway obstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2009;42:207–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Lund, VJ. Objective assessment of nasal obstruction. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1989;22:279–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Murrell, G. Components of the nasal examination. Aesthet Surg J 2013;33:38–42 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Hellings, PW, Scadding, G, Alobid, I, Bachert, C, Fokkens, WJ, Gerth van Wijk, R et al. Executive summary of European Task Force document on diagnostic tools in rhinology. Rhinology 2012;50:339–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Hilberg, O. Objective measurement of nasal airway dimensions using acoustic rhinometry: methodological and clinical aspects. Allergy 2002;57(suppl 70):5–39 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Clement, PA, Halewyck, S, Gordts, F, Michel, O. Critical evaluation of different objective techniques of nasal airway assessment: a clinical review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:2617–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Mamikoglu, B, Houser, S, Akbar, I, Ng, B, Corey, JP. Acoustic rhinometry and computed tomography scans for the diagnosis of nasal septal deviation, with clinical correlation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:61–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Corey, JP, Gungor, A, Nelson, R, Fredberg, J, Lai, V. A comparison of the nasal cross-sectional areas and volumes obtained with acoustic rhinometry and magnetic resonance imaging. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117:349–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Chaves, C, de Andrade, CR, Ibiapina, C. Objective measures for functional diagnostic of the upper airways: practical aspects. Rhinology 2014;52:99–103 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Andrews, PJ, Chowdhury, N, Takhar, A, Poirrier, AL, Jacques, T, Randhawa, PS. The need for an objective measure in septorhinoplasty surgery: are we any closer to finding an answer? Clin Otolaryngol 2015;40:698–703 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Nathan, RA, Eccles, R, Howarth, PH, Steinsvåg, SK, Togias, A. Objective monitoring of nasal patency and nasal physiology in rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2005;115:S442–59 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13 Stewart, 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
14 Takhar, AS, Stephens, J, Randhawa, PS, Poirrier, AL, Andrews, P. Validation of the sino-nasal outcome test-23 in septorhinoplasty surgery. Rhinology 2014;52:320–6Google ScholarPubMed
15 Poirrier, AL, Ahluwalia, S, Goodson, A, Ellis, M, Bentley, M, Andrews, P. Is the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 a suitable evaluation for septorhinoplasty? Laryngoscope 2013;123:76–81 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16 Hopkins, C, Gillett, S, Slack, R, Lund, VJ, Browne, JP. Psychometric validity of the 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test. Clin Otolaryngol 2009;34:447–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed