CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Nasal Surgery and Airway StudiesSinusitis and nasal conditionsCleft Lip and Palate Research

Surgery of the external nasal valve: the correlation between subjective and objective measurements

Menger, D.J., Swart, K.M.A., Nolst Trenité, G.J., Georgalas, C., Grolman, W.·2014·Clinical Otolaryngology
DOI 10.1111/coa.12243
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives/hypothesis Minimum cross-sectional area of the nasal passage on CT (CT-MCA) is an objective computerised determination of the minimum cross-sectional area of the nasal passage on CT. CT-MCA was evaluated before and after surgery on the external nasal valve using the 'lateral crus pull-up' procedure (LCPU). The outcomes of CT-MCA were compared with other currently available objective tests for nasal valve patency. Study design Prospective cohort study. Methods This study included 34 patients undergoing surgery on the external nasal valve with the use of the LCPU technique. CT-MCA was performed before and after surgery and compared with the subjective perception of nasal passage using the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale and with objective tests such as acoustic rhinometry (A-MCA), rhinomanometry (NAR) and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF). Results This study showed a significant correlation between CT-MCA and the NOSE scale, PNIF and NAR. Paired-samples t-tests showed significant improvement after surgery on CT-MCA, PNIF and the NOSE scale. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that PNIF, CT-MCA and NAR were significantly associated with the NOSE scale. Conclusion CT-MCA and PNIF were both significantly correlated and associated with the patient's subjective perception of nasal passage. The surgical procedure, the 'lateral crus pull-up', showed a significant improvement in the postoperative result both subjectively and objectively.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/coa.12243

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PNIF relationship seems to improve when compared with validated questionnaires such as SNOT-22 and NOSE.

    “although it seems to improve when compared with validated questionnaires such as the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and NOSE [65,68,70-73].”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [72]

  • Menger et al found significant correlations between MTA-CT and NOSE and between PNIF and NOSE, but no correlation between NOSE and AARMN or AcR.

    “Significant correlations were detected between MTA-CT and NOSE and between PNIF and NOSE. No correlation was found between the subjective method used (NOSE) and AARMN or AcR [72].”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [72]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Menger, D. J., Swart, K. M. A., Nolst Trenité, G. J., Georgalas, C., & Grolman, W.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Bergman Clinics The Hague The Netherlands
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Menger, D.J.
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Otolaryngology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
150-155
ISSN
  • 0307-7772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-4478
  • 1749-4486
DOI
10.1111/coa.12243
OpenAlex
W2044188716
Cited by
29
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4
FWCI
3.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 22 d)
Locations
  • Clinical Otolaryngology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Cleft Lip and Palate Research
Keywords
peak nasal inspiratory flow, rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry, Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation, nasal obstruction
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nasal Cavity, Prospective Studies, Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Nasal Obstruction, Treatment Outcome, Rhinometry, Acoustic, Rhinomanometry, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review