Comparative analysis of velopharyngeal activity assessed by acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry.

PURPOSE: To analyze the velopharyngeal (VP) activity of subjects with velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) by acoustic rhinometry, as compared to rhinomanometry. METHODS: This was a prospective clinical study conducted in 41 adults, both genders, with repaired cleft palate, with or without a previously repaired cleft lip, and residual VPD on clinical assessment, without compensatory articulations for [p], [t], and [k]. The outcome measures were as follows: (1) on acoustic rhinometry, nasopharyngeal volumetric change (ΔV) during [p], [t], and [k], relatively to rest condition (decreases by <3 cm3 considered as absence of VP activity); (2) on modified anterior rhinomanometry, VP orifice area (areas ≥0.05 cm2 considered as inadequate closure). The plosive [p] was used when comparing the techniques (n=24). RESULTS: (1) A mean ΔV decrease of 18% was observed during [k], which was significantly lower (p<0.05) than the decrease reported for individuals without VPD (30%). ΔV values suggesting VPD were observed in 59% subjects. Similar results were obtained for [p] and [t], which shall be used as stimulus, given that they do not involve the use of the tongue to lift the velum during VP closure, differently from the velar plosive [k]. (2) Inadequate closure was seen in 85% subjects. No correlation was observed between ∆V and VP orifice area. Agreement between techniques was observed in 51% cases. CONCLUSION: Acoustic rhinometry had low accuracy as a diagnostic method of VPD when compared to the gold standard method. Nevertheless, the technique shows potential as a method for monitoring the outcomes of clinical and surgical treatment of VPD aimed at increasing velar and pharyngeal activity.

Análise comparativa da atividade velofaríngea aferida por rinometria acústica e rinomanometria / Comparative analysis of velopharyngeal activity assessed by acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry

RESUMO Objetivo: Analisar a atividade velofaríngea (VF) de indivíduos com disfunção velofaríngea (DVF) aferida por rinometria acústica, comparativamente à rinomanometria. Métodos: Estudo clínico prospectivo em 41 adultos, de ambos os gêneros, com fissura de palato±lábio previamente operada e DVF residual ao exame clínico, sem articulação compensatória nas plosivas surdas [p], [t] e [k]. Variáveis analisadas: (1) variação volumétrica da nasofaringe (∆V) na produção das três plosivas, relativamente ao repouso, por rinometria acústica (reduções <3 cm3 foram consideradas como ausência de atividade velofaríngea); (2) área do orifício velofaríngeo (área VF), por rinomanometria anterior modificada; áreas ≥0,05 cm2 foram consideradas como fechamento inadequado. Na comparação das técnicas foi utilizada a plosiva [p] (n=24). Resultados: Observou-se: (1) ∆V médio de 18% no [k], significantemente menor (p<0,05) que a redução relatada para normais (30%); valores de ∆V sugestivos de DVF constatados em 59% dos casos. Resultados similares foram obtidos no [p] e [t], mostrando-se mais apropriados para o exame rinométrico, por não envolverem a participação da língua no fechamento velofaríngeo, diferentemente da plosiva velar [k]; (2) fechamento VF inadequado em 85% dos casos. Não houve correlação significativa entre o ∆V e a área do orifício velofaríngeo. A concordância de diagnóstico entre os métodos ocorreu em 51% dos casos. Conclusão: A rinometria acústica não apresentou boa acurácia como método de diagnóstico da DVF frente ao método padrão. Demonstrou, contudo, potencial como método de acompanhamento dos resultados de intervenções clínico-cirúrgicas que levem à maior atividade velar e faríngea.

ABSTRACT Purpose: To analyze the velopharyngeal (VP) activity of subjects with velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) by acoustic rhinometry, as compared to rhinomanometry. Methods: This was a prospective clinical study conducted in 41 adults, both genders, with repaired cleft palate, with or without a previously repaired cleft lip, and residual VPD on clinical assessment, without compensatory articulations for [p], [t], and [k]. The outcome measures were as follows: (1) on acoustic rhinometry, nasopharyngeal volumetric change (ΔV) during [p], [t], and [k], relatively to rest condition (decreases by <3 cm3 considered as absence of VP activity); (2) on modified anterior rhinomanometry, VP orifice area (areas ≥0.05 cm2 considered as inadequate closure). The plosive [p] was used when comparing the techniques (n=24). Results: (1) A mean ΔV decrease of 18% was observed during [k], which was significantly lower (p<0.05) than the decrease reported for individuals without VPD (30%). ΔV values suggesting VPD were observed in 59% subjects. Similar results were obtained for [p] and [t], which shall be used as stimulus, given that they do not involve the use of the tongue to lift the velum during VP closure, differently from the velar plosive [k]. (2) Inadequate closure was seen in 85% subjects. No correlation was observed between ∆V and VP orifice area. Agreement between techniques was observed in 51% cases. Conclusion: Acoustic rhinometry had low accuracy as a diagnostic method of VPD when compared to the gold standard method. Nevertheless, the technique shows potential as a method for monitoring the outcomes of clinical and surgical treatment of VPD aimed at increasing velar and pharyngeal activity.

Effect of nasal decongestion on nasalance measures.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of nasal decongestant on nasalance scores for a group of 100 individuals. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one subjects with hypernasality and 59 subjects without hypernasality underwent nasometric assessment at the Hospital for Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil. DESIGN: Nasalance scores were obtained for each subject before the application of a nasal decongestant and again 10 minutes after subjects received a topical nasal decongestant applied into both nostrils. RESULTS: The nasalance scores obtained after the application of the nasal decongestant were significantly higher than those obtained before the decongestant. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal decongestion had a small but statistically significant effect on nasalance scores, suggesting that in some individuals, nasal congestion should be a variable of concern when using the Nasometer. Both nasal congestion (i.e., due to nasal rhinitis) and the effects of nasal decongestant sprays may influence Nasometer test results. Interpretation of nasalance scores, therefore, should be done carefully. Furthermore, nasometry, with and without nasal decongestant, can be a valuable clinical tool for screening anterior nasal obstruction, helping to isolate obstruction due to nasal congestion from structural obstruction in the nasal cavities.