The Laryngoscope · 2020
Nasal Airflow Changes With Bioabsorbable Implant, Butterfly, and Spreader Grafts.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brandon Bryan M, Stepp Wesley H, Basu Saikat, Kimbell Julia S, Senior Brent A, Shockley William W, Madison Clark J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Internal nasal valve compromise is a major cause of nasal obstruction, with a growing number of ways to treat this condition. In this study, we compared the effects of butterfly graft, spreader graft, and the bioabsorbable nasal implant on nasal airflow resistance.
STUDY DESIGN: Cadaver study.
METHODS: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations were completed from nine preoperative and postoperative cadaveric subjects. Each cadaveric head underwent placement of a bioabsorbable nasal implant (BNI) (Spirox Latera; Stryker ENT, Plymouth, MN), butterfly graft, or spreader graft. Pre- and postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were used to generate three-dimensional models of the nasal airway used in steady-state CFD simulations of airflow and heat transfer during inspiration.
RESULTS: Butterfly graft placement resulted in a mean improvement in nasal airway resistance of 24.9% (±7.3), whereas BNI placement resulted in a 6.7% (±1.2) improvement, and spreader graft placement also resulted in a consistent improvement of 2.6% (±13.5). Pressure within the main nasal cavity was consistently lower following butterfly graft placement versus a spreader graft or BNI. Butterfly and spreader graft placement also resulted in modest improvements in airflow allocation, whereas BNI demonstrated more variation (-1% to 12%). Heat flux was not significantly different; however, a small improvement in total heat flux was seen with all three interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate reduction in nasal airway resistance in all three surgical interventions, with the butterfly graft demonstrating superiority to the other two techniques. However, these data only reflect a static environment and not dynamic changes in airflow seen during respiration.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 130:E817-E823, 2020.
STUDY DESIGN: Cadaver study.
METHODS: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations were completed from nine preoperative and postoperative cadaveric subjects. Each cadaveric head underwent placement of a bioabsorbable nasal implant (BNI) (Spirox Latera; Stryker ENT, Plymouth, MN), butterfly graft, or spreader graft. Pre- and postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were used to generate three-dimensional models of the nasal airway used in steady-state CFD simulations of airflow and heat transfer during inspiration.
RESULTS: Butterfly graft placement resulted in a mean improvement in nasal airway resistance of 24.9% (±7.3), whereas BNI placement resulted in a 6.7% (±1.2) improvement, and spreader graft placement also resulted in a consistent improvement of 2.6% (±13.5). Pressure within the main nasal cavity was consistently lower following butterfly graft placement versus a spreader graft or BNI. Butterfly and spreader graft placement also resulted in modest improvements in airflow allocation, whereas BNI demonstrated more variation (-1% to 12%). Heat flux was not significantly different; however, a small improvement in total heat flux was seen with all three interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate reduction in nasal airway resistance in all three surgical interventions, with the butterfly graft demonstrating superiority to the other two techniques. However, these data only reflect a static environment and not dynamic changes in airflow seen during respiration.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 130:E817-E823, 2020.