Search

Objective: The aim of the study was to determine whether Nasal Provocation Tests (NPT) could help in the diagnosis of occupational rhinitis (OR)., Methods: Changes in nasal airway resistance (NAR), measured by posterior rhinomanometry during specific nasal challenge associated with per and post test clinical scores, were compared to a prior probability, based on the patient's history, determined by occupational physicians, in 41 hairdressers and 33 bakers referred for suspected OR., Results: A DeltaNAR >or= 150% defined the positivity of the NPT. DeltaNAR demonstrated 50% sensitivity and a 86% specificity in hairdressers and a 95% sensitivity with 100 % specificity in bakers. DeltaNAR presented significant positive correlations with both per (p = 0.0003, r = 0.48) and post test clinical scores (p < 0.005, r = 0.39). The addition of clinical scores increased the sensitivity to 100% in hairdressers with 81% specificity., Conclusions: The NPT constitutes a safe procedure of nasal reactivity with good levels of sensitivity and specificity in both hairdressers and bakers when nasal resistance and clinical scores are taken into account.

Objective: To determine the significance of cross-sectional areas obtained by acoustic rhinometry., Design: Comparison of data obtained by acoustic rhinometry and computed tomography (CT)., Setting: Outpatient clinic., Patients: Nine adults with nasal obstruction due to turbinate hypertrophy., Main Outcome Measures: Acoustic rhinometry and CT were performed after nasal decongestion. The acoustic area-distance curve was analyzed based on 3 notches (A1, A2, and A3) corresponding to 3 local minimal areas. Computed tomographic measurements were made in the coronal plane at 0.5-cm intervals, and the narrowest sections in the anterior (S1), middle (S2), and posterior (S3) parts of the nasal cavity were selected. Mean specific section areas and volumes were computed by integration of the acoustic area-distance curves using the same procedure for the 2 methods., Results: Significant correlations were found between acoustic and CT areas in the anterior nasal cavity (A1 vs S1, P < .001; A2 vs S2, P < .005). Acoustic and CT anterior volumes from A1 to A2 and from S1 to S2 were significantly correlated with each other (P < .005). No correlation was found between acoustic and CT areas measured at the posterior part of the nose (A3 vs S3). A weak correlation was evidenced between acoustic and CT posterior volumes from A2 to A3 and from S2 to S3 (P < .05)., Conclusions: Acoustic rhinometry may be particularly well suited to the evaluation of anterior nasal geometry during clinical studies. At the posterior part of the nose, acoustic measurements may be of limited clinical relevance.