These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of nasal obstruction with Odiosoft-Rhino in nasal septal deviation.
    Author: Tahamiler R, Canakcioglu S.
    Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2008 Apr; 37(2):285-91. PubMed ID: 19128628.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Evaluation of a recently developed method for measuring nasal obstruction. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reliability of a new software program called Odiosoft-Rhino (OR) as a presumptive diagnostic method to evaluate the nasal airflow of patients who have nasal septal deviation and to compare OR results with the acoustic rhinometry (AR) results and visual analogue scale (VAS) of nasal obstruction. SETTING: Referral centre, institutional practice. METHODS: OR uses a software program to analyze the original sounds of nasal airflow and evaluate the sounds of both nasal inspiration and expiration and then performs spectral and frequency analysis. OR and AR were performed on 56 patients with nasal septal deviations and 52 healthy controls. Their VAS, minimal cross-sectional area (MCA)1, and MCA2 measurements and nasal expiratory sound analysis between 200 to 500, 500 to 1000, 1000 to 2000, 2000 to 4000, and 4000 to 6000 Hz frequencies were noted for the left and right nasal cavities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Assessment and comparison of nasal obstruction with OR and AR methods. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the MCA1 and MCA2 values and the nasal expiratory sound intensity of the deviated patients at 200 to 500, 500 to 1000, 1000 to 2000, and 2000 to 4000 Hz of the patient group and the control group (p < .001). There was a correlation between the OR results of 2000 to 4000 and 4000 to 6000 Hz intervals and the MCA1 results of the deviated sides. From the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the pooled results showed that 81.8% of deviated patients in the 2000 to 4000 Hz frequency range were found under the curve (p < .001). Related to this, 83.4% sensitivity and 82.1% specificity with a 14.5 dB cutoff point were determined. CONCLUSION: The OR test is noninvasive and requires little cooperation. The sensitivity and specificity of the OR test are reliable, so we could propose to use OR as a new diagnostic method to evaluate the nasal airflow in clinical practice. However, more studies with wider series and some technical modification are needed.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]