BACKGROUND: Nasal airflow resistance, as measured by rhinomanometry, is frequently impaired in allergic rhinitis (AR). However, rhinomanometry is not widely available. Visual analogue scales (VAS) have been proposed to assess symptom severity in AR. AIM OF THE STUDY: To verify the suitability of the use of the VAS as a surrogate for rhinomanometry in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis and treated with turbinectomy in quantifying nasal obstruction during the follow-up. METHODS: Fifty patients (27 males, mean age 23 years, SD 2.24) were studied. VAS for nasal obstruction and rhinomanometry were performed in all patients before turbinectomy and after 6 months. RESULTS: A significant correlation was observed between VAS for nasal obstruction and nasal airflow resistance (Spearman r = 0.879, p < 0.001) at baseline. Moreover, a significant direct relationship between these two variables was observed (r = 0.567, p < 0.001) also at the follow-up after surgery. CONCLUSION: The use of VAS for assessing the nasal obstruction appears as clinically relevant, in that it allows with good reliability to quantify this symptom in the absence of rhinomanometry in the follow-up of patients treated with turbinectomy.
V.A.S. in the follow-up of turbinectomy.
MORA, FRANCESCO;
2009-01-01
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nasal airflow resistance, as measured by rhinomanometry, is frequently impaired in allergic rhinitis (AR). However, rhinomanometry is not widely available. Visual analogue scales (VAS) have been proposed to assess symptom severity in AR. AIM OF THE STUDY: To verify the suitability of the use of the VAS as a surrogate for rhinomanometry in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis and treated with turbinectomy in quantifying nasal obstruction during the follow-up. METHODS: Fifty patients (27 males, mean age 23 years, SD 2.24) were studied. VAS for nasal obstruction and rhinomanometry were performed in all patients before turbinectomy and after 6 months. RESULTS: A significant correlation was observed between VAS for nasal obstruction and nasal airflow resistance (Spearman r = 0.879, p < 0.001) at baseline. Moreover, a significant direct relationship between these two variables was observed (r = 0.567, p < 0.001) also at the follow-up after surgery. CONCLUSION: The use of VAS for assessing the nasal obstruction appears as clinically relevant, in that it allows with good reliability to quantify this symptom in the absence of rhinomanometry in the follow-up of patients treated with turbinectomy.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
