Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2016
[The evaluation of nasal ventilatioan in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome after nasal cavity ventilation expansion techniques by using acoustic rhinometry].
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Lu Hanqiang, Jiang Huaping, Huang Qiusheng
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate nasal ventilation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) after nasal cavity ventilation expansion techniques by using acoustic rhinometry.
METHOD: Thirty-eight patients with mild OSAHS and 17 patients with moderate OSAHS who were diagnosis by PSG were selected. The acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry were used to assess the nasal cavity volumes (NCV), nasal airway resistance (NR), nasal minimal cross-section area (NMCA) and distance of nasal minimal cross-section area from nostril (DCAN) before and after the surgery (6 month later).
RESULT: The state of mild OSAHS group in NCV, NMCA and NR: before surgery (2.41 ± 1.33) cm³, (0.37 ± 0.39) cm², (2.07 ± 1.48) cmH₂O/(L · min), after surgery (2.53 ± 1.54) cm³, (0.45 ± 0.34) cm², (1.69 ± 1.03) cmH₂O/(L · min), has significant difference (P < 0.05). The state of moderate OSAHS group in NCV, NMCA and NR: before surgery (2.03 ± 1.54)cm³, (0.29 ± 0.39) cm², (3.47 ± 2.56) cmH₂O/(L · min), after surgery (2.31 ± 1.47) cm³, (0.39 ± 0.33) cm², (1.89 ± 1.03)cmH₂O/(L · min), also has significant difference (P < 0.05), while DCAN in two group had no difference (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: There was an objective evaluation of nasal ventilation in OSAHS patients after surgery by using acoustic rhinometry.
METHOD: Thirty-eight patients with mild OSAHS and 17 patients with moderate OSAHS who were diagnosis by PSG were selected. The acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry were used to assess the nasal cavity volumes (NCV), nasal airway resistance (NR), nasal minimal cross-section area (NMCA) and distance of nasal minimal cross-section area from nostril (DCAN) before and after the surgery (6 month later).
RESULT: The state of mild OSAHS group in NCV, NMCA and NR: before surgery (2.41 ± 1.33) cm³, (0.37 ± 0.39) cm², (2.07 ± 1.48) cmH₂O/(L · min), after surgery (2.53 ± 1.54) cm³, (0.45 ± 0.34) cm², (1.69 ± 1.03) cmH₂O/(L · min), has significant difference (P < 0.05). The state of moderate OSAHS group in NCV, NMCA and NR: before surgery (2.03 ± 1.54)cm³, (0.29 ± 0.39) cm², (3.47 ± 2.56) cmH₂O/(L · min), after surgery (2.31 ± 1.47) cm³, (0.39 ± 0.33) cm², (1.89 ± 1.03)cmH₂O/(L · min), also has significant difference (P < 0.05), while DCAN in two group had no difference (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: There was an objective evaluation of nasal ventilation in OSAHS patients after surgery by using acoustic rhinometry.