In reference to Regional peak mucosal cooling predicts the perception of nasal patency.
In reference to Regional peak mucosal cooling predicts the perception of nasal patency.
复制标题
参考区域峰值粘膜冷却预测鼻腔通畅的感觉。
DOI：
10.1002/lary.24600
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Frank-Ito,DennisO
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Garcia,GuilhermeJM;Kimbell,JuliaS;Frank-Ito,DennisO
我们想对Zhao和他的同事最近发表的一篇比较主观和客观测量鼻通畅的文章进行评论。在22名健康个体的队列中，Zhao和他的同事研究了鼻通畅的主观感知（通过视觉模拟评分测量）是否与客观测量相关，如粘膜冷却（通过计算流体动力学或CFD测量）、鼻阻力（通过鼻测压仪和CFD测量）和最小横截面积（通过声学鼻测压仪测量）。他们发现“在所有测量和计算的变量中，只有cfd模拟的热损失（……）与通畅度评级显著相关。”这一发现为越来越多的证据表明粘膜冷却在鼻腔气流的感觉中起着重要作用提供了重要的贡献。2 - 6我们赞扬作者首次将CFD与传统的鼻腔通畅测量方法（鼻压测量法和声学鼻压测量法）进行大规模比较。然而，我们感到困惑的是，通过CFD测量的鼻阻力与鼻压测量之间的相关性很低（Pearson相关R= 0.41；表1）。我们期望cfd衍生和鼻流测量衍生的鼻阻力之间有更高的相关性（可能Pearson R >.8），因为这两种工具都得到了很好的验证。例如，先前的研究报告了通过CFD计算的经鼻压降与塑料鼻复制品的实验测量结果之间的良好一致性。7-8特别地，Zhao和他的同事报告了一个个体的CFD和鼻压测量之间的良好一致性。9
We would like to comment on the recent article by Zhao and colleagues1 comparing subjective and objective measures of nasal patency. In a cohort of 22 healthy individuals, Zhao and colleagues investigated whether the subjective perception of nasal patency (measured by a visual analog score) correlates with objective measures, such as mucosal cooling (measured by computational fluid dynamics or CFD), nasal resistance (measured by rhinomanometry and CFD), and minimum cross-sectional area (measured by acoustic rhinometry). They found that “among all measured and computed variables, only CFD-simulated heat loss (…) significantly correlated with patency ratings.” This finding represents an important contribution to growing evidence that mucosal cooling plays an essential role in the sensation of nasal airflow. 2–6We commend the authors for conducting the first large-scale comparison of CFD versus traditional measures of nasal patency (rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry). However, we are puzzled with the low correlation between the nasal resistances measured via CFD and rhinomanometry (Pearson correlation R= 0.41; Table 1). We expected a much higher correlation (perhaps Pearson R> 0.8) between CFD-derived and rhinomanometry-derived nasal resistances, given that both tools are well validated. For example, previous studies reported good agreement between the transnasal pressure drop computed by CFD and experimental measurements in plastic nasal replicas. 7–8 In particular, Zhao and colleagues reported good agreement between CFD and rhinomanometry in one individual. 9