Article

Opening the nasal valve with external dilators reduces congestive symptoms in normal subjects.

Department of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
American Journal of Rhinology (Impact Factor: 1.36). 01/2005; 19(2):215-9.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We examined whether the use of two different external nasal dilator devices influenced the size of the nasal valve area and symptoms of nasal congestion.
This was a randomized blind-allocation, open three-way crossover study of Breathe Right, Side Strip Nasal Dilators, and placebo. We studied 12 healthy subjects (10 female, 2 male; age range 26-56 years). Measures of total volume and total minimum cross-sectional area were collected. Subjective symptoms were collected using a visual analog scale and an ordinal scale.
With both products, there was significant increase in the size of the minimum cross-sectional area compared to placebo, p = 0.004. This is supported by the decrease in the subjective reports of congestion; on the visual analog scale, compared to placebo p = 0.012 and the ordinal scale, compared to placebo, p = 0.004.
Both devices significantly increase the size of the nasal valve area and reduce congestion in normal subjects.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
61 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most studies on nasal dilators have used Breathe Right or Nozovent. Both devices dilate the nasal valves, reduce nasal resistance, and improve nasal airflow. The use of dilators improves airflow most on inspiration, as the valve is stabilised and prevented from collapse. The response varies greatly between individuals, and can be impressive. The effect of nasal dilators may be lower in non-Caucasians. During exercise, nasal dilators delay the onset of oronasal breathing, and can have only small effects on performance thereafter. Nozovent and Breathe Right can reduce snoring, and improve otherwise obstructed breathing during sleep in selected patients. It is a challenge to find those patients, and one way could be to perform polysomnography with and without nasal dilator.
    Rhinology 01/2007; 44(4):239-48. · 1.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nasal obstruction is commonly due to enlargement of the inferior turbinate. This review discusses the pathophysiology of turbinate enlargement, the indications for, and methods and outcome of turbinate reduction. All techniques are successful but vary in their long-term efficacy, their propensity for complications and the degree to which they may adversely affect nasal function. Newer techniques under local anaesthetic and often endoscopic control offer outpatient treatment with satisfactory outcomes. However selecting a particular technique should take account of the individual patient's features, the surgeon's experience and judgement and informed patient choice.
    Rhinology 09/2009; 47(3):227-36. · 1.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The symptoms and treatments for nasal obstruction are numerous and common. Yet, a consensus on a surgical approach or, even more importantly, how to define the success of any approach is lacking in the literature. A disease-specific outcomes instrument recently developed by the American Academy of Otolaryngology, known as the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale, has allowed for a validated, uniform method to compare different treatments for nasal obstruction. Using the NOSE scale, we prospectively compared the use of bilateral radiofrequency inferior turbinate reduction (BRITR) only with that of BRITR with septoplasty in the treatment of nasal obstruction caused by the combination of septal deviation and turbinate hypertrophy. NOSE scores were obtained pretreatment and at 3 month and 6 month follow-up. Our data demonstrated significant improvement from baseline after 6 months for the NOSE scores in both the BRITR (P < .001) and BRITR/septoplasty groups (P = .023). No statistical difference was noted in the amount of postoperative improvement between the two treatment groups (P = .304). Both groups did demonstrate a large, clinically important effect using a distribution-based assessment of clinical change. Despite equal clinically effective results, estimated costs for each treatment option differed significantly, with the office-based BRITR only group providing significant cost savings compared with the hospital-based BRITR/septoplasty group. This study suggests that BRITR should be considered as an initial treatment option for nasal obstruction rather than a septoplasty with turbinate reduction in patients with the clinical findings of both a septal deviation and turbinate hypertrophy after failure of medical therapy.
    The Laryngoscope 11/2007; 117(11):1912-9. · 1.98 Impact Factor