Berger Manuel, Giotakis Aris I, Pillei Martin, Mehrle Andreas, Kraxner Michael, Kral Florian, Recheis Wolfgang, Riechelmann Herbert, Freysinger Wolfgang
Department of Environmental, Process and Energy Engineering, MCI, The Entrepreneurial School, Innsbruck, Austria.
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2021 Apr;16(4):629-638. doi: 10.1007/s11548-021-02332-1. Epub 2021 Mar 7.
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 = 0.93 (p < 0.001). 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 = 0.65; p = 0.041).
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.
主动前鼻测压法（AAR）和计算机断层扫描（CT）是评估鼻阻塞的标准化方法。最近将AAR与基于CT的计算流体动力学（CFD）进行关联的尝试存在争议。我们旨在基于内部开发的程序研究这种相关性和一致性。
在一项初步研究中，我们回顾性检查了五名计划进行鼻中隔成形术的受试者，以及术前数字容积断层扫描和AAR。使用格子玻尔兹曼代码Sailfish CFD进行模拟。我们检查了AAR得出的压力（RhinoPress）和模拟得出的压力（SimPress）之间的相关性和一致性，以及AAR得出的150 Pa压力降时吸气过程中的阻力（RhinoRes150）和模拟得出的阻力（SimRes150）之间的相关性和一致性。为了研究压力之间以及阻力之间的相关性，分别进行了单因素方差分析和Pearson相关性分析。为了研究一致性，使用了Bland-Altman方法。
RhinoPress和SimPress之间的相关系数为r = 0.93（p < 0.001）。在鼻阻塞较轻的一侧，RhinoPress与SimPress相似，而在鼻阻塞较重的一侧，RhinoPress比SimPress大两倍。RhinoRes150和SimRes150之间发现中等相关性（r = 0.65；p = 0.041）。
基于CT的CFD通过格子玻尔兹曼代码在鼻阻塞较轻的一侧模拟鼻测压压力似乎更可行。在鼻阻塞较重的一侧，遇到了高达100% 的错误率。我们的结果表明，基于CT的CFD和AAR得出的压力和阻力相似，但并不相同。
