ABSTRACT
Objective:To compare the clinical value of visual analogue scale （VAS）, Lebel scale and total nasal symptom scores （TNSS） in evaluating nasal allergen provocation test （NAPT）. Methods:A total of 151 patients suspected of allergic rhinitis admitted to the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery of our hospital from April 2020 to September 2020 were included, of which 76 were positive for house dust mites and 75 were negative for allergens. Nasal airway resistance（NAR） was measured by active anterior nasal manometry. Nasal symptoms were evaluated by VAS, Lebel and TNSS. House dust mite allergen was used for NAPT by spray method. An increase≥40% in NAR was used as the gold standard for objective evaluation of NAPT. ROC curves of VAS, Lebel and TNSS were drawn to compare the evaluation effectiveness of different subjective evaluation methods, and the optimal critical point of each ROC curve was obtained. Results:With NAR increased by ≥40% as the gold standard, the area under ROC curve of VAS was 0.884, and the sensitivity and specificity were 97.75% and 80.65%, respectively. The area under ROC curve of Lebel was 0.773, and the sensitivity and specificity were 68.54% and 75.81%, respectively. The area under ROC curve of TNSS was 0.792, and the sensitivity and specificity were 68.54% and 79.03%, respectively. There was no significant difference between Lebel and TNSS（P>0.05）. The VAS differed significantly from Lebel and TNSS（P<0.05）. The Kappa values of VAS, Lebel, TNSS and NAR were 0.803, 0.432 and 0.459, respectively. Conclusion:The VAS, Lebel, TNSS subjective scale and NAR are consistent in evaluating the efficacy of NAPT, with the VAS assessment showing highest consistency with NAR. As objective assessment instruments are not widely used in China, subjective assessment method could be adopted to evaluate the efficacy of NAPT in clinical practice, and VAS scale is recommended as a priority.
Subject(s)
Animals , Humans , Allergens , Nasal Provocation Tests/methods , Rhinitis, Allergic/diagnosis , Nose , PyroglyphidaeABSTRACT
A finalidade deste artigo é avaliar o efeito da expansão rápida da maxila (ERM) no padrão respiratório. Por intermédio de um caso clínico, será relatado como indivíduos com atresia da maxila e problemas respiratórios podem se beneficiar com a expansão rápida da maxila. Outro aspecto que deve-se salientar é como profissionais da área da saúde, principalmente ortodontistas e otorrinolaringologistas, têm à sua disposição exames complementares para o diagnóstico do paciente com "Respiração Bucal".
The aim of the present investigation is to evaluate the effect of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) on the respiratory pattern. A clinical case is presented to describe how patients with atresic maxilla and respiratory problems can benefit from rapid maxillary expansion. The article highlights that the health professional, mainly the Orthodontist and the Otorhinolaryngologist, may use complementary exams to diagnose a mouth breather patient.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Child , Nasal Cavity/abnormalities , Nasal Cavity/pathology , Malocclusion, Angle Class II/therapy , Palatal Expansion Technique , Mouth Breathing/diagnosis , Rhinomanometry , Orthodontics , Respiratory System AbnormalitiesABSTRACT
Active anterior rhinomanometry (AAR) was performed in 42 patients with low-profile or saddle noses before augmentation rhinoplasty (AR) and after AR. The purpose was to measure nasal airway resistance (NAR) and nasal airflow (NAF). There were 38 females and 4 males, whose ages ranged from 15 to 42 years (mean 29.6 years). Preoperative total NAR at 75 Pascals (Pa) was 0.24+/-0.09 and 0.20+/-0.06 Pa/ml/sec for the non-decongested and decongested value respectively. Two weeks postoperatively, the total NAR was 0.19+/-0.06 and 0.15+/-0.05 Pa/ml/sec for the non-decongested and decongested value respectively, which was significantly less than the preoperative value. The postoperative total NAF was 422.31+/-137.05 cm3 and 514. 57+/-152.45 cm3 for the non-decongested and decongested value respectively, which was significantly increased when compared to the preoperative value (342.57+/-109.27 cm3 and 399.90+/-106.98 cm3 for the non-decongested and decongested value respectively). The comparison between the changes in NAR and subjective nasal breathing showed that the postoperative NAR decreased in 88.10% of patients while subjective nasal breathing improved in only 52.38%. Postoperative NAR increased in 9.52% of patients, while subjective nasal breathing was worsened in 2.38%. The results of this study indicate that AR has decreased the NAR and increased NAF, and thus improving the nasal breathing. From this preliminary study it is concluded that AR is useful not only for the aesthetic aspect but also for its effect on the function of the nose, especially on the improvement of nasal breathing.