PDF herunterladen
Facial Plast Surg 2024; 40(03): 336-340
DOI: 10.1055/a-2160-4998
Original Research

Quantifying the Subjective Experience of Nasal Obstruction: A Review

Monica K. Rossi Meyer 
1   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
,
Sam P. Most
1   Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Nasal obstruction is an exceedingly common problem and challenging to treat due to its multifactorial etiology. Therefore, measuring treatment outcomes of nasal obstruction can be equally complex yet vital to appropriately assessing symptom improvement or resolution. Both physiologic and anatomic assessments of the nasal airway exist in addition to validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which objectify subjective nasal obstruction and sinonasal symptoms. Correlation between objective and subjective treatment outcome measures is controversial with clinical guidelines favoring the use of PROMs for surgical treatment of nasal obstruction. In this review, the anatomic and physiologic measurements of the nasal airway and validated PROMs will be discussed, as well as the rationale for implementing PROMs into the rhinoplasty surgeon's practice.

Keywords

patient-reported outcome measures - rhinoplasty - nasal obstruction


Publikationsverlauf

Accepted Manuscript online:
25. August 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
25. September 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Hilberg O. Objective measurement of nasal airway dimensions using acoustic rhinometry: methodological and clinical aspects. Allergy 2002; 57 (Suppl. 70) 5-39
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Stewart M, Ferguson B, Fromer L. Epidemiology and burden of nasal congestion. Int J Gen Med 2010; 3: 37-45
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Moubayed SP, Most SP. Evaluation and management of the nasal airway. Clin Plast Surg 2022; 49 (01) 23-31
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Hilberg O, Pedersen OF. Acoustic rhinometry: recommendations for technical specifications and standard operating procedures. Rhinol Suppl 2000; 16: 3-17
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 André RF, Vuyk HD, Ahmed A, Graamans K, Nolst Trenité GJ. Correlation between subjective and objective evaluation of the nasal airway. A systematic review of the highest level of evidence. Clin Otolaryngol 2009; 34 (06) 518-525
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Kjaergaard T, Cvancarova M, Steinsvåg SK. Does nasal obstruction mean that the nose is obstructed?. Laryngoscope 2008; 118 (08) 1476-1481
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Poetker DM, Rhee JS, Mocan BO, Michel MA. Computed tomography technique for evaluation of the nasal valve. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004; 6 (04) 240-243
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Terheyden H, Maune S, Mertens J, Hilberg O. Acoustic rhinometry: validation by three-dimensionally reconstructed computer tomographic scans. J Appl Physiol 2000; 89 (03) 1013-1021
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hilberg O, Jensen FT, Pedersen OF. Nasal airway geometry: comparison between acoustic reflections and magnetic resonance scanning. J Appl Physiol 1993; 75 (06) 2811-2819
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 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 (04) 349-354
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Corey JP, Nalbone VP, Ng BA. Anatomic correlates of acoustic rhinometry as measured by rigid nasal endoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999; 121 (05) 572-576
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 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): 757-759
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 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 (1, Pt 1): 61-68
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Rhee JS, Weaver EM, Park SS. et al. Clinical consensus statement: diagnosis and management of nasal valve compromise. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 143 (01) 48-59
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Naito K, Iwata S. Current advances in rhinomanometry. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1997; 254 (07) 309-312
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Jones AS, Lancer JM, Stevens JC, Beckingham E. Rhinomanometry: do the anterior and posterior methods give equivalent results?. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1987; 12 (02) 109-114
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 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 (10) 2617-2625
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Lam DJ, James KT, Weaver EM. Comparison of anatomic, physiological, and subjective measures of the nasal airway. Am J Rhinol 2006; 20 (05) 463-470
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bermüller C, Kirsche H, Rettinger G, Riechelmann H. Diagnostic accuracy of peak nasal inspiratory flow and rhinomanometry in functional rhinosurgery. Laryngoscope 2008; 118 (04) 605-610
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Angelos PC, Been MJ, Toriumi DM. Contemporary review of rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2012; 14 (04) 238-247
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Rhee JS, Pawar SS, Garcia GJ, Kimbell JS. Toward personalized nasal surgery using computational fluid dynamics. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2011; 13 (05) 305-310
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Pawar SS, Garcia GJ, Kimbell JS, Rhee JS. Objective measures in aesthetic and functional nasal surgery: perspectives on nasal form and function. Facial Plast Surg 2010; 26 (04) 320-327
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Garcia GJ, Rhee JS, Senior BA, Kimbell JS. Septal deviation and nasal resistance: an investigation using virtual surgery and computational fluid dynamics. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010; 24 (01) e46-e53
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ. et al. Clinical practice guideline: improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty executive summary. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 156 (02) 205-219
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Cannon DE, Rhee JS. Evidence-based practice: functional rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2012; 45 (05) 1033-1043
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Andrews PJ, Choudhury 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 (06) 698-703
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Spielmann PM, White PS, Hussain SS. Surgical techniques for the treatment of nasal valve collapse: a systematic review. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (07) 1281-1290
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Clarke JD, Hopkins ML, Eccles R. Evidence for correlation of objective and subjective measures of nasal airflow in patients with common cold. Clin Otolaryngol 2005; 30 (01) 35-38
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Sipilä J, Suonpää J, Silvoniemi P, Laippala P. Correlations between subjective sensation of nasal patency and rhinomanometry in both unilateral and total nasal assessment. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1995; 57 (05) 260-263
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Hirschberg A, Rezek O. Correlation between objective and subjective assessments of nasal patency. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1998; 60 (04) 206-211
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 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 (02) 157-163
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Stewart MG, Smith TL, Weaver EM. et al. Outcomes after nasal septoplasty: results from the Nasal Obstruction Septoplasty Effectiveness (NOSE) study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (03) 283-290
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Rhee JS, Poetker DM, Smith TL, Bustillo A, Burzynski M, Davis RE. Nasal valve surgery improves disease-specific quality of life. Laryngoscope 2005; 115 (03) 437-440
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Most SP. Analysis of outcomes after functional rhinoplasty using a disease-specific quality-of-life instrument. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006; 8 (05) 306-309
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Rhee JS, Sullivan CD, Frank DO, Kimbell JS, Garcia GJ. A systematic review of patient-reported nasal obstruction scores: defining normative and symptomatic ranges in surgical patients. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2014; 16 (03) 219-225 , quiz 232
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Lipan MJ, Most SP. Development of a severity classification system for subjective nasal obstruction. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2013; 15 (05) 358-361
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 274 (04) 1807-1811
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Moubayed SP, Ioannidis JPA, Saltychev M, Most SP. The 10-item standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey (SCHNOS) for functional and cosmetic rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (01) 37-42
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Saltychev M, Kandathil CK, Abdelwahab M, Spataro EA, Moubayed SP, Most SP. Psychometric properties of the standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey: item response theory analysis. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2018; 20 (06) 519-521
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Saltychev M, Kandathil CK, Abdelwahab M, Spataro EA, Moubayed SP, Most SP. Confirmatory factor analysis of the standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143 (02) 454e-456e
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Kandathil CK, Saltychev M, Abdelwahab M, Spataro EA, Moubayed SP, Most SP. Minimal clinically important difference of the standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (08) 837-840
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Patel P, Wadhwa H, Okland T, Kandathil C, Most SP. Comparison of the distribution of standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey scores between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med 2022; 24 (04) 305-309
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Kandathil CK, Saltychev M, Patel PN, Most SP. Natural history of the standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey after rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 2021; 131 (01) E116-E123
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 44 Patel PN, Kandathil CK, Abdelhamid AS, Buba CM, Most SP. Matched cohort comparison of dorsal preservation and conventional hump resection rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2023; 47 (03) 1119-1129
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 45 Toriumi DM, Kovacevic M, Kosins AM. Structural preservation rhinoplasty: a hybrid approach. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149 (05) 1105-1120
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 46 Patel PN, Most SP. Combining open structural and dorsal preservation rhinoplasty. Clin Plast Surg 2022; 49 (01) 97-109
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 47 Alan MA, Kahraman ME, Yüksel F, Yücel A. Comparison of dorsal preservation and dorsal reduction rhinoplasty: analysis of nasal patency and aesthetic outcomes by rhinomanometry, NOSE and SCHNOS Scales. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2023; 47 (02) 728-734
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 48 Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA. et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016; 18 (01) 27-35
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 49 Manahan MAMD, Fedok F, Davidson C. et al. Evidence-based performance measures for rhinoplasty: a multidisciplinary performance measure set. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021; 147 (02) 222e-230e
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 50 Rhee JS, Arganbright JM, McMullin BT, Hannley M. Evidence supporting functional rhinoplasty or nasal valve repair: a 25-year systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 139 (01) 10-20
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 51 Most SP, Moubayed SP. Patient-reported outcome measures for facial plastic surgery: a specialty finally gets to go to the PROM. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2017; 19 (02) 101
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar