This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Immunology  • Allergy  • Diagnosis  • General Rhinology  • Dermatology  • Hypersensitivity  • Alert me on articles by topic

Eike Gunther Wüstenberg, MD; Thomas Zahnert, MD; Karl-Bernd Hüttenbrink, MD; Thomas Hummel, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133(4):344-349.

Objective  To investigate whether there is a correlation between active anterior rhinomanometry (RMM) and optical rhinometry (ORM) data in the detection of changes in nasal congestion.

Design  In 70 subjects both ORM and RMM were performed. Changes in nasal congestion were induced by nasal provocation with histamine, allergens, solvent, and xylometazoline hydrochloride, 0.1%. Using visual analog scales, subjects rated the degree of nasal congestion and how comfortable each of the 2 measures was. In total, 136 measurements were evaluated.

Subjects  Seventy subjects were included in the study. All had a normal otorhinolaryngologic status with no acute or chronic infections.

Interventions  Nasal provocation tests with allergens, histamine, control solution, or xylometazoline were performed.

Main Outcome Measures  Congestion or decongestion of the nasal mucosa was measured via nasal resistance (RMM), changes in light absorption of the nasal tissue (ORM), and visual analog scale.

Results  When comparing the relative change in light extinction in ORM with nasal airflow in RMM, we found correlation coefficients up to r = –0.69. Results from RMM were correlated with the subjects' ratings of nasal congestion (r = –0.63). In comparison, the correlation coefficient between these ratings and ORM was r = 0.84. In addition, ORM was rated to be more comfortable than RMM.

Conclusions  The subjects' ratings of nasal congestion correlated to a higher degree with the results from ORM than with those from RMM. In addition, ORM was rated as more comfortable than RMM. Overall, ORM appeared to be a valid technique for the assessment of changes in nasal congestion.

Author Affiliations: Departments of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Dresden, Dresden (Drs Wüstenberg, Zahnert, and Hummel), and University of Cologne, Cologne (Dr Hüttenbrink), Germany.