RICHARD LOUIS VOEGELS

(Fonte: Lattes)
Índice h a partir de 2011
20
Lattes
ORCID
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Departamento de Otorrinolaringologia e Oftalmologia, Faculdade de Medicina - Docente
Instituto Central, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Médico
LIM/32 - Laboratório de Otorrinolaringologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina - Líder

Filtros

Limpar filtros

Configurações

search.filters.applied.f.dateIssued: 2021 × Revista / Livro: American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy ×

Resultados de Busca

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
  • article 17 Citação(ões) na Scopus
    Rhinomanometry Versus Computational Fluid Dynamics: Correlated, but Different Techniques
    (2021) CHEROBIN, Giancarlo B.; VOEGELS, Richard L.; PINNA, Fabio R.; GEBRIM, Eloisa M. M. S.; BAILEY, Ryan S.; GARCIA, Guilherme J. M.
    Background Past studies reported a low correlation between rhinomanometry and computational fluid dynamics (CFD), but the source of the discrepancy was unclear. Low correlation or lack of correlation has also been reported between subjective and objective measures of nasal patency. Objective: This study investigates (1) the correlation and agreement between nasal resistance derived from CFD (R-CFD) and rhinomanometry (R-RMN), and (2) the correlation between objective and subjective measures of nasal patency. Methods Twenty-five patients with nasal obstruction underwent anterior rhinomanometry before and after mucosal decongestion with oxymetazoline. Subjective nasal patency was assessed with a 0-10 visual analog scale (VAS). CFD simulations were performed based on computed tomography scans obtained after mucosal decongestion. To validate the CFD methods, nasal resistance was measuredin vitro(R-EXPERIMENT) by performing pressure-flow experiments in anatomically accurate plastic nasal replicas from 6 individuals. Results Mucosal decongestion was associated with a reduction in bilateral nasal resistance (0.34 +/- 0.23 Pa.s/ml to 0.19 +/- 0.24 Pa.s/ml, p = 0.003) and improved sensation of nasal airflow (bilateral VAS decreased from 5.2 +/- 1.9 to 2.6 +/- 1.9, p < 0.001). A statistically significant correlation was found between VAS in the most obstructed cavity and unilateral airflow before and after mucosal decongestion (r = -0.42, p = 0.003). Excellent correlation was found between R(CFD)and R-EXPERIMENT(r = 0.96, p < 0.001) with good agreement between the numerical andin vitrovalues (R-CFD/R-EXPERIMENT = 0.93 +/- 0.08). A weak correlation was found between R(CFD)and R-RMN(r = 0.41, p = 0.003) with CFD underpredicting nasal resistance derived from rhinomanometry (R-CFD/R-RMN = 0.65 +/- 0.63). A stronger correlation was found when unilateral airflow at a pressure drop of 75 Pa was used to compare CFD with rhinomanometry (r = 0.76, p < 0.001). Conclusion CFD and rhinomanometry are moderately correlated, but CFD underpredicts nasal resistance measuredin vivodue in part to the assumption of rigid nasal walls. Our results confirm previous reports that subjective nasal patency correlates better with unilateral than with bilateral measurements and in the context of an intervention.