T W Guyette1, B E Smith. 1. Craniofacial Center, University of Illinois at Chicago 60612-7308, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effect of septal perforations on posterior and anterior rhinomanometric measures of nasal resistance in an analog model. DESIGN: The data were analyzed using a repeated-measures ANOVA. Nasal resistance was the dependent variable, while type of rhinomanometry, septal perforation size, and position of resistance (proximal vs. distal) were nominal scale independent variables. PARTICIPANTS: The analog model used in this study was similar to that described by Warren and Devereux (1966), except that the nasal cavities of the model were modified to create septal perforations. OUTCOME MEASURES: The main dependent measure was nasal resistance. RESULTS: An Important finding of this investigation was that septal perforations resulted in large differences (> 3 cm H2O/L/sec) between posterior and anterior nasal resistance values in the bilateral proximal resistor condition. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior rhinomanometry may underestimate true nasal resistance when a septal perforation is present, because the septal perforation prevents accurate measurement of nasopharyngeal pressure. Posterior rhinomanometric measures should accurately reflect nasal resistance despite septal perforations, because the perforation does not invalidate the estimate of nasopharyngeal pressure.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to determine the effect of septal perforations on posterior and anterior rhinomanometric measures of nasal resistance in an analog model. DESIGN: The data were analyzed using a repeated-measures ANOVA. Nasal resistance was the dependent variable, while type of rhinomanometry, septal perforation size, and position of resistance (proximal vs. distal) were nominal scale independent variables. PARTICIPANTS: The analog model used in this study was similar to that described by Warren and Devereux (1966), except that the nasal cavities of the model were modified to create septal perforations. OUTCOME MEASURES: The main dependent measure was nasal resistance. RESULTS: An Important finding of this investigation was that septal perforations resulted in large differences (> 3 cm H2O/L/sec) between posterior and anterior nasal resistance values in the bilateral proximal resistor condition. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior rhinomanometry may underestimate true nasal resistance when a septal perforation is present, because the septal perforation prevents accurate measurement of nasopharyngeal pressure. Posterior rhinomanometric measures should accurately reflect nasal resistance despite septal perforations, because the perforation does not invalidate the estimate of nasopharyngeal pressure.