Responsiveness of acoustic rhinometry to septorhinoplasty by comparison to rhinomanometry and subjective instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Nose patency measures and instruments assessing subjective health are increasingly being used in rhinology. However, there is very little evidence of comparing existing methods' responsiveness to change. We evaluated the responsiveness of acoustic rhinometry to nasal valve surgery by comparison to rhinomanometry and patient-reported outcome instruments. DESIGN: Prospective case-control study Setting: Tertiary referral University Hospital Participants: Sixty consecutive patients with internal nasal valve dysfunction and 20 healthy volunteers as control group were enrolled. Prospectively collected data included acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry, NOSE scale, SNOT-23 questionnaire, visual analogue scale and demographics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoint was the responsiveness of acoustic rhinometry to functionnal septorhinoplasty surgery at 3 months. Secondary endpoints were ability of acoustic rhinometry to reflect "known group" differences and correlation to subjective symptoms. RESULTS: Acoustic rhinometry was highly responsive to septorhinoplasty (p<0.0001) while anterior rhinomanometry was not (p=0.08). Based on the quartiles of the post-operative change in NOSE score, patients were classified as respectively non responders, mild, moderate and good responders to surgery. Logistic regression model showed that acoustic rhinometry was able to discriminate non responders to responders to surgery (p=0.019), while anterior rhinomanometry failed (p=0.611). Sensitivity and specificity of acoustic rhinometry were significantly higher (ROC area=0.76) than rhinomanometry (ROC area =0.48). Acoustic rhinometry was also superior than rhinomanometry to discriminate patients from control subjects, and agreed better with patients-based subjective questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms and quantifies the responsiveness of acoustic rhinometry to nasal valve surgery, with a higher sensitivity and specificity than rhinomanometry. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.