Jannert M, Andréasson L, Ivarsson A, Nielsen A
Acta Otolaryngol. 1984 Jan-Feb;97(1-2):137-49. doi: 10.3109/00016488409130974.
In a group of 20 healthy subjects the patency of the maxillary ostium has been evaluated in 35 maxillary sinuses with three different techniques: simultaneous pressure recording in the sinus and the ipsi- and contralateral nasal cavity; simultaneous recording of differential pressure between the sinus and the ipsilateral nasal cavity and air-flow through the ostium during nasal breathing; recording of the pressure rise in the sinus with an artificial air-flow of 1 litre per minute applied to the sinus. The tests were carried out in sitting and recumbent positions. In 5 persons (10 sinuses) a retest was performed after 2 months. These subjects were also tested with an inflatable neck cuff in order to obtain an increased venous pressure. Rhinomanometry at rest and after physical effort was also performed. The pressure relationship between the maxillary sinus and the ipsilateral nasal cavity was 1:1 in both the sitting and the recumbent position, but less than 1 when the contralateral nasal cavity was measured. Pressure recording alone gives no quantitative information about the patency of the ostium. Determination of the ostial resistance during nasal breathing could be performed in 13 sinuses, but in the remaining 22 the ostia were too wide to give a measurable resistance. The equivalent ostial diameter during inspiration could be estimated in 12 of the sinuses from a diagram constructed from known ostial diameters in model experiments. With an artificial air-flow applied into the sinus, the equivalent ostial diameters could be estimated from the diagram in all cases. No statistical difference was found in comparable cases between the mean equivalent ostial diameters estimated with the two methods. The equivalent ostial diameters showed a statistically significant reduction in the recumbent position and after application of the neck cuff. A statistically significant relationship was also found between the airway resistance of the nasal cavity and the equivalent diameter of the ostium in sitting and recumbent positions. Such a relationship could not be found between the equivalent ostial diameters measured at rest and the nasal resistance recorded after physical effort.
在一组20名健康受试者中，采用三种不同技术对35个上颌窦的上颌窦口通畅情况进行了评估：同时记录窦腔以及同侧和对侧鼻腔的压力；同时记录窦腔与同侧鼻腔之间的压差以及鼻呼吸时通过窦口的气流；通过向窦腔施加每分钟1升的人工气流来记录窦腔内的压力升高。测试在坐位和卧位进行。5名受试者（10个窦）在2个月后进行了重新测试。这些受试者还使用可充气颈圈进行测试，以提高静脉压。同时还进行了静息和体力活动后的鼻阻力测量。上颌窦与同侧鼻腔之间的压力关系在坐位和卧位均为1:1，但测量对侧鼻腔时该比例小于1。仅压力记录无法提供关于窦口通畅情况的定量信息。在13个窦中可测定鼻呼吸时的窦口阻力，但其余22个窦的窦口过宽，无法测得可量化的阻力。在12个窦中，可根据模型实验中已知窦口直径构建的图表估算吸气时的等效窦口直径。在所有情况下，通过向窦腔施加人工气流，均可从图表中估算等效窦口直径。两种方法估算的平均等效窦口直径在可比情况下未发现统计学差异。等效窦口直径在卧位和使用颈圈后显示出统计学上的显著减小。在坐位和卧位时，鼻腔气道阻力与窦口等效直径之间也发现了统计学上的显著关系。在静息时测得的等效窦口直径与体力活动后记录的鼻阻力之间未发现这种关系。
