Acoustic rhinometry: A study of transient and continuous noise techniques with nasal models

Citation
Pg. Djupesland et al., Acoustic rhinometry: A study of transient and continuous noise techniques with nasal models, AM J RHINOL, 13(4), 1999, pp. 323-329
Citations number
15
Categorie Soggetti
Otolaryngology
Journal title
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RHINOLOGY
ISSN journal
10506586 → ACNP
Volume
13
Issue
4
Year of publication
1999
Pages
323 - 329
Database
ISI
SICI code
1050-6586(199907/08)13:4<323:ARASOT>2.0.ZU;2-D
Abstract
The objective of this study is to compare the properties of two of the most frequently used acoustic rhinometers: the EcoVision (Hood Laboratories, US A) using the transient technique, and the Rhin2100 (RhinoMetrics, Denmark) using the continuous wide-band technique. In the wide-band rhino,meter (Rhi n2100), the transient analog signals of traditional rhinometers (EcoVision) , are replaced by a digitally produced continuous wide-band noise signal. T ubular models and a plastic model produced by stereolithography (SLA), repr esenting the mie replicate of the nasal anatomy were cued to compare the ac curacy of the two rhinometers. The effect of increasing angling (0-50 degre es) between the sound wave tube and the cavity was evaluated in a tubular m odel. The curves obtained with the two rhinometers showed close similarity, and the acoustically derived volumes correlated well with the volumes of t ubular (% error < 4%) as well as the complex nasal model (% error < 10.5%). Both rhinometers underestimated the minimum cross-sectional area (MCA) of the complex nasal model (mean % error complex model: Rhin2100 = -7.6%, EcoV ision = -13%). The effect of increasing the angle between the nose adapter and the tubular models was small for both rhinometers (CV < 3% for MCA and CV < 1% for volumes). The similar, and in general, high accuracy oft he two rhinometers evaluated, particularly in the complicated geometry of the SLA model, is an indication of the reliability of both. The small effect of ch anging the angle between the nose adapter and the models was unexpected and very encouraging. Nevertheless, some minor differences in performance and capabilities of the two rhinometers might influence interpretation and comp arison of results. Further comparisons in a clinical setting are under curr ent investigation.