Full-text resources of PSJD and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl
Journal
Article title
Content
Full texts:
Title variants
Languages of publication
Abstracts
Introduction: In the general population, nasal obstruction is a common complaint. However, an objective evaluation of nasal obstruction is difficult. Nose examination, computed tomography (CT), acoustic rhinometry, and anterior rhinomanometry do not accurately reflect the discomfort reported by patients with nasal obstruction. In patients with nasal obstruction, this study evaluated nasal breathing with a unique device for continuous nasal-oral spirometry – a nasal-oral flow analyzer (NOFA); moreover, quality of life was compared between patients with normal nasal breathing on NOFA and of those with impaired nasal breathing on NOFA.
Methods: Of 181 adult patients admitted to an ENT department due to nasal obstruction that were enrolled in the study, 97 (53.6%) completed all per-protocol assessments, including the SF-36 questionnaire and 3-hour, continuous nasal-oral spirometry with NOFA. Based on the presence of normal nasal breathing defined as ≥95% of nasal flow, the 97 patients were divided into those with normal nasal breathing (n=31) and impaired nasal breathing (n=66).
Results: Patients with normal nasal breathing differed from those with impaired nasal breathing with respect to all SF-36 subscales (physical functioning, p=0.004; role-physical, p=0.009; bodily pain, p<0.001; general health, p=0.007; vitality, p=0.002; social functioning, p=0.008; mental health, p=0.009; physical component summary, p<0.001; mental component summary, p=0.02), except for the role-emotional subscale (p=0.1).
Conclusions: Among patients with symptoms of nasal obstruction, compared to patients with normal nasal breathing, those with impaired nasal breathing had significantly lower quality of life in the physical and mental domains. Further research needs to determine whether NOFA can be used to diagnose nasal obstruction.
Methods: Of 181 adult patients admitted to an ENT department due to nasal obstruction that were enrolled in the study, 97 (53.6%) completed all per-protocol assessments, including the SF-36 questionnaire and 3-hour, continuous nasal-oral spirometry with NOFA. Based on the presence of normal nasal breathing defined as ≥95% of nasal flow, the 97 patients were divided into those with normal nasal breathing (n=31) and impaired nasal breathing (n=66).
Results: Patients with normal nasal breathing differed from those with impaired nasal breathing with respect to all SF-36 subscales (physical functioning, p=0.004; role-physical, p=0.009; bodily pain, p<0.001; general health, p=0.007; vitality, p=0.002; social functioning, p=0.008; mental health, p=0.009; physical component summary, p<0.001; mental component summary, p=0.02), except for the role-emotional subscale (p=0.1).
Conclusions: Among patients with symptoms of nasal obstruction, compared to patients with normal nasal breathing, those with impaired nasal breathing had significantly lower quality of life in the physical and mental domains. Further research needs to determine whether NOFA can be used to diagnose nasal obstruction.
Journal
Year
Volume
Pages
11-15
Physical description
Dates
published
2018-03-01
Contributors
author
author
author
author
author
author
References
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.ceon.element-98126b6a-a3c6-3e06-95b6-7bc08c59ddd6
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.