We have located links that may give you full text access.
Correlations between Computational Fluid Dynamics and clinical evaluation of nasal airway obstruction due to septal deviation: an observational study.
Clinical Otolaryngology 2019 April 21
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to determine how Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) could be correlated to clinical evaluation of Nasal Airway Obstruction (NAO) in a population of patients with symptomatic septal deviation (SD). The secondary objective was to determine whether CFD could define which side was the more obstructed.
DESIGN: This was an observational study.
SETTINGS: Few publications have attempted to correlate CFD with clinical evaluation of NAO. This correlation would permit validation and improved interpretation. This study was performed in a university research laboratory specialized in fluid mechanics.
PARTICIPANTS: We included patients referred for septal surgery at our center. Age range was 19 to 58 years. Preoperative CT scans were performed. All patients with non-structural causes of NAO such as rhinitis, sinusitis or tumoral / autoimmune processes (i.e., not due to anatomic obstruction) were excluded.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: For each nasal fossa, we compared CFD data (total pressure, heat flux, wall shear stress, temperatures, velocity and nasal resistances) with both patient perception scores and rhinomanometry using the Spearman correlation test (rs ). Perception scores were graded from 0/4 to 4/4 on each side, based on the patient interview. We also compared CFD-derived nasal resistances with rhinomanometry-derived nasal resistances.
RESULTS: Twenty-two patients complaining of NAO with SD were analyzed, and 44 analyses were performed comparing each side with its CFD data. Regarding correlations with patient perception scores, the best values we found were Heat Flux measures (rs =0.86). Both rhinomanometry and CFD-calculated nasal resistances had strong correlations with subjective perception scores (rs =0.75, p<0.001 and rs =0.6, p<0.001, respectively). We found a statistically significant difference between RMM-NR and CFD-NR (p=0.003). Heat Flux analysis allowed us to distinguish the more obstructed side (MOS) and the less obstructed side (LOS) in 100% of patients.
CONCLUSION: This study aimed to enhance our ability to interpret CFD-calculated data in the nasal airway. It highlights and confirms that Heat Flux measures are very closely correlated to patient perception in cases of SD. It also helps to distinguish the more obstructed side from the less obstructed side and could contribute to further CFD studies. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
DESIGN: This was an observational study.
SETTINGS: Few publications have attempted to correlate CFD with clinical evaluation of NAO. This correlation would permit validation and improved interpretation. This study was performed in a university research laboratory specialized in fluid mechanics.
PARTICIPANTS: We included patients referred for septal surgery at our center. Age range was 19 to 58 years. Preoperative CT scans were performed. All patients with non-structural causes of NAO such as rhinitis, sinusitis or tumoral / autoimmune processes (i.e., not due to anatomic obstruction) were excluded.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: For each nasal fossa, we compared CFD data (total pressure, heat flux, wall shear stress, temperatures, velocity and nasal resistances) with both patient perception scores and rhinomanometry using the Spearman correlation test (rs ). Perception scores were graded from 0/4 to 4/4 on each side, based on the patient interview. We also compared CFD-derived nasal resistances with rhinomanometry-derived nasal resistances.
RESULTS: Twenty-two patients complaining of NAO with SD were analyzed, and 44 analyses were performed comparing each side with its CFD data. Regarding correlations with patient perception scores, the best values we found were Heat Flux measures (rs =0.86). Both rhinomanometry and CFD-calculated nasal resistances had strong correlations with subjective perception scores (rs =0.75, p<0.001 and rs =0.6, p<0.001, respectively). We found a statistically significant difference between RMM-NR and CFD-NR (p=0.003). Heat Flux analysis allowed us to distinguish the more obstructed side (MOS) and the less obstructed side (LOS) in 100% of patients.
CONCLUSION: This study aimed to enhance our ability to interpret CFD-calculated data in the nasal airway. It highlights and confirms that Heat Flux measures are very closely correlated to patient perception in cases of SD. It also helps to distinguish the more obstructed side from the less obstructed side and could contribute to further CFD studies. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app