Acoustic rhinometry and video endoscopic scoring to evaluate postoperative outcomes in endonasal spreader graft surgery with septoplasty and turbinoplasty for nasal valve collapse

Bree Erickson, Robert Hurowitz, Caroline Jeffery, Khalid Ansari, Hamdy El Hakim, Erin D Wright, Hadi Seikaly, Sam R Greig, David W J Côté, Bree Erickson, Robert Hurowitz, Caroline Jeffery, Khalid Ansari, Hamdy El Hakim, Erin D Wright, Hadi Seikaly, Sam R Greig, David W J Côté

Abstract

Background: Nasal obstruction is a common complaint seen by otolaryngologists. The internal nasal valve (INV) is typically the narrowest portion of the nasal cavity, and if this area collapses on inspiration the patient experiences significant symptoms of nasal obstruction. The nasal obstruction is further compounded if the INV is narrower than normal. Previous studies have evaluated the effectiveness of techniques to alleviate structural nasal obstruction, but none have looked specifically at spreader grafts measured by acoustic rhinometry or validated grading assessment of dynamic INV collapse. Our objective was to evaluate the application of acoustic rhinometry coupled with visual endoscopic grading of the INV, and validated subjective measurements, in patients undergoing endonasal spreader graft surgery with septoplasty and turbinoplasty.

Methods: This is a prospective clinical study conducted within a tertiary care rhinoplasty practice. Patients undergoing septoplasty and bilateral inferior turbinoplasty with bilateral endonasal spreader graft placement for observed internal nasal valve collapse were recruited. Baseline, early and intermediate postoperative measures were obtained. The primary outcome was grading of the INV collapse on video endoscopy. Secondary outcomes included cross-sectional area at the INV measured by acoustic rhinometry, subjective Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) and Sino-Nasal Outcome Tool (SNOT-22) scores.

Results: A total of 17 patients, average age of 34.5 ± 12.2 years, undergoing septoplasty, bilateral endonasal spreader grafts, and bilateral turbinoplasty were included in the study. Postoperative measurements were performed at an average of 8.1 ± 1.6 weeks and 17.7 ± 4.2 weeks. Patients had significant improvement for INV collapse grading, cross-sectional area, NOSE and SNOT-22 scores in both the early and intermediate follow up. Endoscopic grading had moderate inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.579) and average intra-rater agreement (κ = 0.545).

Conclusions: This study is the first to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement of objective measurement of internal nasal valve function, both static and dynamic, and subjective improvements. This supports endonasal cartilagenous spreader grafts with septoplasty and inferior turbinoplasty for patients with nasal obstruction with internal nasal valve collapse.

References

    1. Jessen M, Malm L. Definition, prevalence and development of nasal obstruction. Allergy. 1997;52(40 Suppl):3–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1997.tb04876.x.
    1. Mink P. Le nez comme voie respiratoire. Presse Otolaryngol Belg. 1903;21:481–96.
    1. Pontius AT, Williams EF., 3rd Endonasal placement of spreader grafts in rhinoplasty. Ear Nose Throat J. 2005;84(3):135–6.
    1. Huang C, Manarey CR, Anand VK. Endoscopic placement of spreader grafts in the nasal valve. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;134(6):1001–5. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2005.11.047.
    1. Craig J, Goyal P, Suryadevara A. Upper lateral strut graft: a technique to improve the internal nasal valve. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2014;28(1):65–9. doi: 10.2500/ajra.2014.28.3975.
    1. Haavisto LE, Sipila JI. Acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry and visual analogue scale before and after septal surgery: a prospective 10-year follow-up. Clin Otolaryngol. 2013;38(1):23–9. doi: 10.1111/coa.12043.
    1. Mengi E, Cukurova I, Yalcin Y, Yigitbasi OG, Karaman Y. Evaluation of operation success in patients with nasal septal deviation with quality of life scale and objective methods. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg. 2011;21(4):184–91. doi: 10.5606/kbbihtisas.2011.024.
    1. Edizer DT, Erisir F, Alimoglu Y, Gokce S. Nasal obstruction following septorhinoplasty: How well does acoustic rhinometry work? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;270(2):609–13. doi: 10.1007/s00405-012-2102-8.
    1. Zoumalan RA, Constantinides M. Subjective and objective improvement in breathing after rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2012;14(6):423–8. doi: 10.1001/archfacial.2012.665.
    1. Lee JY. Efficacy of intra- and extraturbinal microdebrider turbinoplasty in perennial allergic rhinitis. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(12):2945–9. doi: 10.1002/lary.24215.
    1. Clement PA, Gordts F. Standardisation Committee on Objective Assessment of the Nasal Airway, IRS, and ERS. Consensus report on acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry. Rhinology. 2005;43(3):169–79.
    1. 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(2):157–63. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2003.09.016.
    1. Buckland JR, Thomas S, Harries PG. Can the sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-22) be used as a reliable outcome measure for successful septal surgery? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2003;28(1):43–7. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2273.2003.00663.x.
    1. Piccirillo JF, Merritt MG, Jr, Richards ML. Psychometric and clinimetric validity of the 20-item sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT-20) Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;126(1):41–7. doi: 10.1067/mhn.2002.121022.
    1. Most SP. Trends in functional rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2008;10(6):410–3. doi: 10.1001/archfaci.10.6.410.
    1. Tsao GJ, Fijalkowski N, Most SP. Validation of a grading system for lateral nasal wall insufficiency. Allergy Rhinol. 2013;4(2):e66–8. doi: 10.2500/ar.2013.4.0054.
    1. Geertzen J. Inter-rater agreement with multiple raters and variables. . Updated 2012. Accessed March 25, 2015.
    1. Gillett S, Hopkins C, Slack R, Browne JP. A pilot study of the SNOT 22 score in adults with no sinonasal disease. Clin Otolaryngol. 2009;34(5):467–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2009.01975.x.
    1. Hilberg O, Jensen FT, Pedersen OF. Nasal airway geometry: comparison between acoustic reflections and magnetic resonance scanning. J Appl Physiol. 1993;75(6):2811–9.
    1. Min YG, Jang YJ. Measurements of cross-sectional area of the nasal cavity by acoustic rhinometry and CT scanning. Laryngoscope. 1995;105(7 Pt 1):757–9. doi: 10.1288/00005537-199507000-00014.
    1. Gilain L, Coste A, Ricolfi F, Dahan E, Marliac D, Peynegre R, et al. Nasal cavity geometry measured by acoustic rhinometry and computed tomography. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997;123(4):401–5. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1997.01900040037006.
    1. Dastidar P, Numminen J, Heinonen T, Ryymin P, Rautiainen M, Laasonen E. Nasal airway volumetric measurement using segmented HRCT images and acoustic rhinometry. Am J Rhinol. 1999;13(2):97–103. doi: 10.2500/105065899782106706.
    1. Numminen J, Dastidar P, Heinonen T, Karhuketo T, Rautiainen M. Reliability of acoustic rhinometry. Respir Med. 2003;97(4):421–7. doi: 10.1053/rmed.2002.1465.
    1. Rhee J, Weaver E, Park S, Baker S, Helger J, Kriet D, et al. Clinical consensus statement: diagnosis and management of nasal valve compromise. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143:48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2010.04.019.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren