Acta otorrinolaringologica espanola · 2026
Comparative analysis of septoplasty and septorhinoplasty using computational fluid dynamics techniques: towards personalized and precision nasal surgery.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Fernández-Míguez Marta, Cabana-Pena Alberto, Pardo-Antúnez Alejandro, Burgos Manuel Antonio, Martínez-Villasmil Virginia, Santamaría-Gadea Alfonso
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Nasal obstruction is a common complaint in otolaryngology. Choosing between septoplasty or septorhinoplasty may be challenging due to anatomical variability. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has emerged as a complementary, patient-specific tool enabling bilateral simulation and virtual planning, allowing simulation of post-surgical outcomes under physiological conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual surgeries were performed on patients with nasal obstruction using Flowgy® software. For each patient, three anatomical models were simulated: baseline, virtual septoplasty, and virtual septorhinoplasty (with turbinoplasty when indicated). CFD analysis was used to assess pressure drop (ΔP), flow symmetry (Φ), and nasal resistance (R), among other airflow parameters. Comparative data were analysed to determine the functional impact of each intervention.
RESULTS: In all five cases, septoplasty resulted in improvements in pressure drop ranging from 10.5% to 50.9%, as well as changes in resistance ranging from +2.98% to -64.3%. Septorhinoplasty provided additional functional gains in pressure (up to 44.8%) and resistance (up to 51%) in selected cases. Based on the analysis, surgical benefit thresholds were proposed: ≥30% improvement in ΔP or R from baseline to justify septoplasty, and ≥20-30% additional benefit over septoplasty to indicate septorhinoplasty.
CONCLUSIONS: CFD analysis is a valuable adjunct in functional nasal surgery, enabling personalised decision-making. While not a substitute for clinical judgement, CFD-guided planning may enhance the selection of surgical strategy and reduce unnecessary interventions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Virtual surgeries were performed on patients with nasal obstruction using Flowgy® software. For each patient, three anatomical models were simulated: baseline, virtual septoplasty, and virtual septorhinoplasty (with turbinoplasty when indicated). CFD analysis was used to assess pressure drop (ΔP), flow symmetry (Φ), and nasal resistance (R), among other airflow parameters. Comparative data were analysed to determine the functional impact of each intervention.
RESULTS: In all five cases, septoplasty resulted in improvements in pressure drop ranging from 10.5% to 50.9%, as well as changes in resistance ranging from +2.98% to -64.3%. Septorhinoplasty provided additional functional gains in pressure (up to 44.8%) and resistance (up to 51%) in selected cases. Based on the analysis, surgical benefit thresholds were proposed: ≥30% improvement in ΔP or R from baseline to justify septoplasty, and ≥20-30% additional benefit over septoplasty to indicate septorhinoplasty.
CONCLUSIONS: CFD analysis is a valuable adjunct in functional nasal surgery, enabling personalised decision-making. While not a substitute for clinical judgement, CFD-guided planning may enhance the selection of surgical strategy and reduce unnecessary interventions.