Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:18:54.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patient experience of nasal obstruction and its clinical assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2018

L Nip ,
M Tan ,
K L Whitcroft ,
R Gupta ,
T S Leung  and
P Andrews
L Nip
Affiliation:
Department of Rhinology and Facial Plastic Surgery, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK
M Tan
Affiliation:
Department of Rhinology and Facial Plastic Surgery, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
K L Whitcroft*
Affiliation:
Department of Rhinology and Facial Plastic Surgery, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK UCL Ear Institute, London, UK
R Gupta
Affiliation:
Department of Rhinology and Facial Plastic Surgery, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK
T S Leung
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
P Andrews
Affiliation:
Department of Rhinology and Facial Plastic Surgery, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK UCL Ear Institute, London, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Miss K L Whitcroft, Department of Rhinology and Facial Plastic Surgery, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, 330 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8DA, UK E-mail: k.whitcroft@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The correlation between objective and subjective nasal obstruction is poor, and dissatisfaction rates after surgery for nasal obstruction are high. Accordingly, novel assessment techniques may be required. This survey aimed to determine patient experience and preferences for the measurement of nasal obstruction.

Method:

Prospective survey of rhinology patients.

Results:

Of 72 questionnaires distributed, 60 were completed (response rate of 83 per cent). Obstruction duration (more than one year) (χ2 = 13.5, p = 0.00024), but not obstruction severity, affected willingness to spend more time being assessed. Questionnaires (48 per cent) and nasal inspiratory peak flow measurement (53 per cent) are the most commonly used assessment techniques. Forty-nine per cent of participants found their assessment unhelpful in understanding their obstruction. Eighty-two per cent agreed or strongly agreed that a visual and numerical aid would help them understand their blockage.

Conclusion:

Many patients are dissatisfied with current assessment techniques; a novel device with visual or numerical results may help. Obstruction duration determines willingness to undergo longer assessment.

Keywords

Nasal ObstructionSymptom Assessment
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 4 , April 2018 , pp. 318 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Pawanker, R, Canonica, G, Holgate, S, Lockey, R. World Allergy Organization (WAO) White Book on Allergy. Milwaukee: World Allergy Organization, 2011Google Scholar
2Fokkens, WJ, Lund, VJ, Mullol, J, Bachert, C. EPOS 2012: European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2012. A summary for otorhinolaryngologists. Rhinology 2012;50:1–12Google Scholar
3Konstantinidis, I, Triaridis, S, Triaridis, A, Karagiannidis, K, Kontzoglou, G. Long term results following nasal septal surgery. Focus on patients' satisfaction. Auris Nasus Larynx 2005;32:369–74Google Scholar
4Andrews, PJ, Jacques, T, Nip, L, Li, CH, Leung, T. A UK survey of current ENT practice in the assessment of nasal patency. J Laryngol Otol 2017;131:702–6Google Scholar
5Hilberg, O. Objective measurement of nasal airway dimensions using acoustic rhinometry: methodological and clinical aspects. Allergy 2002;57:5–39Google Scholar
6Clement, PA, Halewyck, S, Gordts, F, Michel, O. Critical evaluation of different objective techniques of nasal airway assessment: a clinical review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014;271:2617–25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Chaves, C, de Andrade, CR, Ibiapina, C. Objective measures for functional diagnostic of the upper airways: practical aspects. Rhinology 2014;52:99–103Google Scholar