EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MECHANICAL TREATMENTS ON NASAL RESISTANCE ASSESSED BY RHINOMETRY

The goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness of three treat ments aiming to reduce nasal airflow resistance (NR): an external nasa l strip device (Respir+), an internal nasal mechanical dilator (Nozove nt), and a topical decongestant (Pernazene). NR was estimated by activ e posterior rhinometry at both a 0.5 L/s flow (NRF) and a 1 cm H2O pre ssure (NRp), under four conditions: in the basal state, with Respir+, with Nozovent, and after treatment with Pernazene. The efficacy of eac h treatment was assessed by the percentage changes in NRF and NRP (%NR F and %NRP, respectively). The study was performed in 15 healthy subje cts, The efficacy of the treatments was significantly different, depen ding on whether it was evaluated by NRF or by NRP (p<0.02), with %NRF and %NRP values, respectively, equal to the following: 88+/-20% and 91 +/-14% with Respir+, 58+/-17% and 70+/-13% with Nozovent, and 55+/-29% and 69+/-22% with Pernazene. NRF remained unchanged with Respir+, whe reas it significantly decreased with Nozovent and Pernazene (p<0.0001) . No significant difference was observed between the effects of the tw o latter treatments. These results demonstrate that Nozovent, which in volves no risk of side effects or drug interactions, is an effective t reatment to improve nasal breathing. Nozovent might therefore be recom mended as an alternative to topical decongestants, for certain subject s presenting with nasal obstruction.