Stefan Hamilton1, Brian W Rotenberg1, Leigh J Sowerby2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, St. Joseph's Healthcare Centre, Western University, 268 Grosvenor St., London, ON, N6A 4V2, Canada. 2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, St. Joseph's Healthcare Centre, Western University, 268 Grosvenor St., London, ON, N6A 4V2, Canada. Leigh.sowerby@sjhc.london.on.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nasal septal perforations can be managed with a septal button prosthesis. While they do not restore the physiological function of the septal mucosa, they are able to improve laminar nasal airflow. With the development of septal buttons sized specifically to perforations, accurate measurement of perforations has become more important for patient satisfaction and comfort. This task can be difficult to accomplish in the clinical setting. In this study, 2 new instruments developed to measure septal perforations were evaluated for accuracy and ease of use. METHODS: Two types of measuring devices ("sizers") were created via 3D printing. One type included six serial, progressively sized instruments (serial sizers) and the other included two instruments with several size gradations (graded sizers). Septal perforations of varying sizes were surgically created in five fresh-frozen cadaver heads. Using a headlight and nasal speculum, 15 otolaryngology trainees and consultants were asked to measure the perforations (length × height) via four different methods: "eyeball" estimation, a ruler, the serial sizers, and the graded sizers. They were also asked to evaluate the methods themselves. An accurate measurement was defined as ± 1 mm of the true measurement. A combination of Chi-square analysis and ANOVA was used to assess the accuracy and ease of use of the four methods. RESULTS: Chi-square analysis showed that the sizers were more accurate than the two traditional methods (eyeball and ruler) for measuring perforation length (73% vs. 44%, p = 4.8 × 10-7) and height (71% vs. 50%, p = 0.0003). ANOVA showed that the eyeball method overestimated perforation length significantly more than the other three methods (p = 0.002), and was also significantly less accurate than the other three methods (p < 0.001). Chi-square analysis did not show any correlation between participant training experience and measurement accuracy for any of the three methods. Participant comments and scores demonstrated a clear preference for the two sizers over the traditional methods. CONCLUSIONS: The two novel sizers studied here were significantly more accurate and easier to use than traditional methods for measuring nasal septal perforations. With broader implementation and study of these devices, there is potential to improve patient care surrounding septal perforations.
BACKGROUND: Nasal septal perforations can be managed with a septal button prosthesis. While they do not restore the physiological function of the septal mucosa, they are able to improve laminar nasal airflow. With the development of septal buttons sized specifically to perforations, accurate measurement of perforations has become more important for patient satisfaction and comfort. This task can be difficult to accomplish in the clinical setting. In this study, 2 new instruments developed to measure septal perforations were evaluated for accuracy and ease of use. METHODS: Two types of measuring devices ("sizers") were created via 3D printing. One type included six serial, progressively sized instruments (serial sizers) and the other included two instruments with several size gradations (graded sizers). Septal perforations of varying sizes were surgically created in five fresh-frozen cadaver heads. Using a headlight and nasal speculum, 15 otolaryngology trainees and consultants were asked to measure the perforations (length × height) via four different methods: "eyeball" estimation, a ruler, the serial sizers, and the graded sizers. They were also asked to evaluate the methods themselves. An accurate measurement was defined as ± 1 mm of the true measurement. A combination of Chi-square analysis and ANOVA was used to assess the accuracy and ease of use of the four methods. RESULTS: Chi-square analysis showed that the sizers were more accurate than the two traditional methods (eyeball and ruler) for measuring perforation length (73% vs. 44%, p = 4.8 × 10-7) and height (71% vs. 50%, p = 0.0003). ANOVA showed that the eyeball method overestimated perforation length significantly more than the other three methods (p = 0.002), and was also significantly less accurate than the other three methods (p < 0.001). Chi-square analysis did not show any correlation between participant training experience and measurement accuracy for any of the three methods. Participant comments and scores demonstrated a clear preference for the two sizers over the traditional methods. CONCLUSIONS: The two novel sizers studied here were significantly more accurate and easier to use than traditional methods for measuring nasal septal perforations. With broader implementation and study of these devices, there is potential to improve patient care surrounding septal perforations.
Authors: Marina N Cavada; Carolyn A Orgain; Raquel Alvarado; Raymond Sacks; Richard J Harvey Journal: Am J Rhinol Allergy Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 2.467