Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-05
Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes with Computational Fluid Dynamics-Derived Nasal Airflow After Nasal Airway Surgery: Prioritizing the Patient’s Perception of Nasal Obstruction
Some patients report persistent nasal obstruction after surgical treatment despite objective improvement.
Objective:
To compare patients’ perceptions of nasal obstruction after surgery with objective nasal airflow as determined by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling: (1) Is perception driven by a more symptomatic side? (2) Can symptom improvement be predicted with CFD modeling?
Methods:
Pre/postoperative Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) and visual analog scale (VAS) score were collected for patients undergoing nasal obstruction surgery. Pre/postoperative computed tomography was used to generate patient-specific airway models for CFD simulation at 15 L/min resting inspiration.
Results:
Ten patients (22–53 years, seven men and three women) underwent septoplasty, turbinate reduction, and/or rhinoplasty. Postoperative NOSE was most correlated with postoperative VAS score from the “affected” side (R2 = 0.59, p < 0.01), and postoperative NOSE was strongly predicted by a two-parameter model using parameters only from the “affected” side (R2 = 0.84, adjusted R2 = 0.80, p < 0.01).
Conclusion:
The postoperative state of the initially “affected” side drives outcomes after nasal obstruction surgery. Surgeries should prioritize improving the “affected” side. A two-parameter model using the VAS and nasal airflow from only the “affected” side strongly predicts NOSE and is promising for the future using virtual planning to individualize procedures to optimize outcome.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RheeJS, BookDT, BurzynskiM, et al.Quality of life assessment in nasal airway obstruction. Laryngoscope. 2003; 113(7):1118–1122.
2.
RheeJS, PoetkerDM, SmithTL, et al.Nasal valve surgery improves disease-specific quality of life. Laryngoscope. 2005; 115(3):437–440; doi: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000157831.46250.ad
3.
RheeJS, WeaverEM, ParkSS, et al.Clinical consensus statement: Diagnosis and management of nasal valve compromise. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010; 143(1):48–59; doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2010.04.019
4.
ClarkDW, Del SignoreAG, RaithathaR, SeniorBA. Nasal Airway Obstruction: Prevalence and Anatomic Contributors. Ear Nose Throat J., 2018; 97(6):173–176. Available from: www.entjournal.com
5.
StewartMG, WitsellDL, SmithTL, et al.Development and validation of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) Scale. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004; 130(2):157–163; doi: 10.1016/j.otohns.2003.09.016
6.
RheeJS, SullivanCD, FrankDO, et al.A systematic review of patient-reported nasal obstruction scores: Defining normative and symptomatic ranges in surgical patients. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2014; 16(3):219–225; doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2013.2473
7.
ShuklaRH, NemadeSV, ShindeKJ. Comparison of visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) score in evaluation of post septoplasty patients. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020; 6(1):53–58; doi: 10.1016/j.wjorl.2019.06.002
8.
CherobinGB, VoegelsRL, PinnaFR, et al.Rhinomanometry versus computational fluid dynamics: Correlated, but different techniques. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2021; 35(2):245–255; doi: 10.1177/1945892420950157
9.
OttavianoG, LundVJ, NardelloE, et al.Comparison between unilateral PNIF and rhinomanometry in healthy and obstructed noses. Rhinology. 2014; 52(1):25–30; doi: 10.4193/Rhino13.037
10.
GulatiSP, SachdevaOP, WadheraR, et al.Role of rhinomanometry to assess nasal airflow and resistance in patients undergoing septoplasty. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008; 60(2):133–136; doi: 10.1007/s12070-007-0119-x
11.
OttavianoG, PendolinoAL, ScarpaB, et al.Correlations between peak nasal inspiratory flow, acoustic rhinometry, 4-phase rhinomanometry and reported nasal symptoms. J Pers Med. 2022; 12(9); doi: 10.3390/jpm12091513
12.
KahramanE, CilY, IncesuluA. The effect of nasal obstruction after different nasal surgeries using acoustic rhinometry and Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Scale. World J Plast Surg. 2016; 5(3):236–243. Available from: www.wjps.ir
BeckerSS, DobratzEJ, StowellN, et al.Revision septoplasty: Review of sources of persistent nasal obstruction. Am J Rhinol. 2008; 22(4):440–444; doi: 10.2500/ajr.2008.22.3200
16.
DerinS, SahanM, DeveerM, et al.The causes of persistent and recurrent nasal obstruction after primary septoplasty. J Craniofac Surg. 2016; 27(4):828–830; doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002505
17.
KudubanO, BingolF, BudakA, et al.The reason of dissatisfaction of patient after septoplasty. Eurasian J Med. 2015; 47(3):190–193; doi: 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2015.18
18.
UmihanicS, BrkicF, OsmicM, et al.The discrepancy between subjective and objective findings after septoplasty. Med Arch. 2016; 70(5):336–338; doi: 10.5455/medarh.2016.70.336-338
19.
García-ChaburMA, CastellanosJ, Corredor-RojasG, et al.Improvement in nasal obstruction and quality of life after nasal septoplasty with turbinoplasty: A pre- and post-study. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2023; 27(2):e266–e273; doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1743462
20.
SaxonS, JohnsonR, SpiegelJH. Laterality and severity of nasal obstruction does not correlate between physicians and patients, nor among physicians. Am J Otolaryngol. 2021; 42(6):103039; doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103039
21.
ChinD, MalekJ, PrattE, et al.Patient self-assessment in discriminating the more obstructed side in nasal breathing. J Laryngol Otol. 2014; 128(S1):S34–S39; doi: 10.1017/S0022215113001631
22.
JanovićN, ĆoćićA, StamenićM, et al.Side asymmetry in nasal resistance correlate with nasal obstruction severity in patients with septal deformities: Computational fluid dynamics study. Clin Otolaryngol. 2020; 45(5):718–724; doi: 10.1111/coa.13563
23.
KimbellJS, GarciaGJM, FrankDO, et al.Computed nasal resistance compared with patient-reported symptoms in surgically treated nasal airway passages: A preliminary report. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2012; 26(3):e94–e98; doi: 10.2500/ajra.2012.26.3766
24.
FarzalZ, SignoreAGD, ZanationAM, et al.A computational fluid dynamics analysis of the effects of size and shape of anterior nasal septal perforations. Rhinology. 2019; 57(2):153–159; doi: 10.4193/Rhin18.111
25.
ShadfarS, ShockleyWW, FleischmanGM, et al.Characterization of postoperative changes in nasal airflow using a cadaveric computational fluid dynamics model: Supporting the internal nasal valve. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2014; 16(5):319–327; doi: 10.1001/jamafacial.2014.395
26.
ChiangH, MartinHL, SicardRM, et al.Olfactory drug delivery with intranasal sprays after nasal midvault reconstruction. Int J Pharm. 2023; 644:123341.
27.
RusselSM, ChiangH, FinlayJB, et al.Characterizing olfactory dysfunction in patients with unilateral cleft lip nasal deformities. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2023; 25(6):457–465; doi: 10.1089/fpsam.2022.0367
28.
SicardRM, Frank-ItoDO. Role of nasal vestibule morphological variations on olfactory airflow dynamics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2021; 82:105282; doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.105282
29.
SicardRM, ShahR, Frank-ItoDO. Analyses on the influence of normal nasal morphological variations on odorant transport to the olfactory cleft. Inhal Toxicol. 2022; 34(11–12):350–358; doi: 10.1080/08958378.2022.2115175
30.
ShahR, MarcusJR, Frank-ItoDO. Computational analysis of olfactory airspace in patients with unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021; 58(10):1242–1250; doi: 10.1177/1055665620982754
31.
LiH, MartinHL, MarcusJR, et al.Analysis of nasal air conditioning in subjects with unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2021; 291:103694; doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2021.103694
32.
PopperC, MartinH, ShahR, et al.Intranasal spray characteristics for best drug delivery in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Laryngoscope. 2022; 133(5):1036–1043; doi: 10.1002/lary.30155
33.
SullivanCD, GarciaGJM, Frank-ItoDO, et al.Perception of better nasal patency correlates with increased mucosal cooling after surgery for nasal obstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014; 150(1):139–147; doi: 10.1177/0194599813509776
34.
Frank-ItoDO, CarpenterDJ, ChengT, et al.Computational analysis of the mature unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity on nasal patency. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019; 7(5):E2244; doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002244
35.
AvashiaYJ, MartinHL, Frank-ItoDO, et al.Computational analyses of physiologic effects after midvault repair techniques in rhinoplasty. FACE. 2023; 4(1):22–32; doi: 10.1177/27325016221138749
36.
MoredduE, MeisterL, Philip-AlliezC, et al.Computational fluid dynamics in the assessment of nasal obstruction in children. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2019; 136(2):87–92; doi: 10.1016/j.anorl.2018.11.008
37.
KiaeeM, WachtelH, NogaML, et al.Regional deposition of nasal sprays in adults: A wide ranging computational study. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2018; 34(5):e2968; doi: 10.1002/cnm.2968
38.
LeeHP, PohHJ, ChongFH, et al.Changes of airflow pattern in inferior turbinate hypertrophy: A computational fluid dynamics model. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2009; 23(2):153–158; doi: 10.2500/ajra.2009.23.3287
39.
GarciaGJM, RheeJS, SeniorBA, et al.Septal deviation and nasal resistance: An investigation using virtual surgery and computational fluid dynamics. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2010; 24(1):e46–e53; doi: 10.2500/ajra.2010.24.3428
40.
ChiangH, ShahR, WashabaughC, et al.Nasal airway obstruction in patients with cleft lip nasal deformity: A systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2024; 92:48–60; doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.02.061
41.
HsuHC, TanCD, ChangCW, et al.Evaluation of nasal patency by visual analogue scale/nasal obstruction symptom evaluation questionnaires and anterior active rhinomanometry after septoplasty: A retrospective one-year follow-up cohort study. Clin Otolaryngol. 2017; 42(1):53–59.
42.
Yepes-NuñezJJ, BartraJ, Muñoz-CanoR, et al.Assessment of nasal obstruction: Correlation between subjective and objective techniques. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2013; 41(6):397–401; doi: 10.1016/j.aller.2012.05.010
43.
KimbellJS, FrankDO, LaudP, et al.Changes in nasal airflow and heat transfer correlate with symptom improvement after surgery for nasal obstruction. J Biomech. 2013; 46(15):2634–2643; doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.08.007
44.
Frank-ItoDO, KimbellJS, LaudP, et al.Predicting postsurgery nasal physiology with computational modeling: Current challenges and limitations. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014; 151(5):751–759; doi: 10.1177/0194599814547497
45.
KandathilCK, SaltychevM, AbdelwahabM, et al.Minimal clinically important difference of the standardized cosmesis and health nasal outcomes survey. Aesthet Surg J. 2019; 39(8):837–840; doi: 10.1093/asj/sjz070
46.
RadulescoT, MeisterL, BouchetG, et al.Functional relevance of computational fluid dynamics in the field of nasal obstruction: A literature review. Clin Otolaryngol. 2019; 44(5):801–809; doi: 10.1111/coa.13396
47.
CaseyKP, BorojeniAAT, KoenigLJ, et al.Correlation between subjective nasal patency and intranasal airflow distribution. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017; 156(4):741–750; doi: 10.1177/0194599816687751
48.
ZhaoK, JiangJ, BlackerK, et al.Regional peak mucosal cooling predicts the perception of nasal patency. Laryngoscope. 2014; 124(3):589–595; doi: 10.1002/lary.24265
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
