Agreement between rhinomanometry and computed tomography-based computational fluid dynamics

Abstract

Active anterior rhinomanometry (AAR) and computed tomography (CT) are standardized methods for the evaluation of nasal obstruction. Recent attempts to correlate AAR with CT-based computational fluid dynamics (CFD) have been controversial. We aimed to investigate this correlation and agreement based on an in-house developed procedure. In a pilot study, we retrospectively examined five subjects scheduled for septoplasty, along with preoperative digital volume tomography and AAR. The simulation was performed with Sailfish CFD, a lattice Boltzmann code. We examined the correlation and agreement of pressure derived from AAR (RhinoPress) and simulation (SimPress) and these of resistance during inspiration by 150 Pa pressure drop derived from AAR (RhinoRes150) and simulation (SimRes150). For investigation of correlation between pressures and between resistances, a univariate analysis of variance and a Pearson’s correlation were performed, respectively. For investigation of agreement, the Bland–Altman method was used. The correlation coefficient between RhinoPress and SimPress was r\u2009=\u20090.93 (p\u2009<\u20090.001). RhinoPress was similar to SimPress in the less obstructed nasal side and two times greater than SimPress in the more obstructed nasal side. A moderate correlation was found between RhinoRes150 and SimRes150 (r\u2009=\u20090.65; p\u2009=\u20090.041). The simulation of rhinomanometry pressure by CT-based CFD seems more feasible with the lattice Boltzmann code in the less obstructed nasal side. In the more obstructed nasal side, error rates of up to 100% were encountered. Our results imply that the pressure and resistance derived from CT-based CFD and AAR were similar, yet not same.