To see the issue content and the abstract you do not have to login
Please login to download the full articles
If you do not have a subscription to Rhinology please consider to take one.
Click here to become a member of the European Rhinologic Society and a subscriber to the journal `RHINOLOGY`, beginning 2020. Subscription including membership fee: Euro 139.-
Three rhinomanometric techniques for detection of transnasal pressures were compared
by computer aided plethysmographic rhinomanometry. Mean unilateral
resistances were measured in the decongested nose of an experienced subject by
traditional anterior (sealed anterior catheter) and posterior (perorally by mouthpiece)
rhinomanometiy and also by a fine catheter inserted pernasally to the nasopharynx.
No significant differences in magnitude (N=25, p =73, mean Rn =0.345
Pa/cm3 /sec) were found. Dimensions of an #8F catheter were adequate for conduction
of transnasal pressures and the catheter placed along the floor of a decongested
nasal cavity was found not to increase resistance to airflow significantly. Posterior
pernasal catheter measurements were less variable than either traditional posterior
(peroral) or anterior rhinomanometry. In 35 consecutive patients untreated by
decongestant there were no significant differences in magnitude or variation between
resistances of the combined nasal cavities immediately following insertion of the
catheter and those obtained 5 minutes later (initial mean Rn = 1.66 + 0.49, 5 min
mean Rn=1.70+ 0.50) and in these naive subjects posterior rhinomanometric
resistances averaged 9% greater than those in whom resistances were measured
pernasally.