ArticleBiomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology2024
On the comparison between pre- and post-surgery nasal anatomies via computational fluid dynamics.
Article in Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nasal breathing difficulties (NBD) are widespread and difficult to diagnose; the failure rate of their surgical corrections is high. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) enables diagnosis of NBD and surgery planning, by comparing a pre-operative (pre-op) situation with the outcome of virtual surgery (post-op). An equivalent comparison is involved when considering distinct anatomies in the search for the functionally normal nose. Currently, this comparison is carried out in more than one way, under the implicit assumption that results are unchanged, which reflects our limited understanding of the driver of the respiratory function. The study describes how to set up a meaningful comparison. A pre-op anatomy, derived via segmentation from a CT scan, is compared with a post-op anatomy obtained via virtual surgery. State-of-the-art numerical simulations for a steady inspiration carry out the comparison under three types of global constraints, derived from the field of turbulent flow control: a constant pressure drop (CPG) between external ambient and throat, a constant flow rate (CFR) through the airways and a constant power input (CPI) from the lungs can be enforced. A significant difference in the quantities of interest is observed depending on the type of comparison. Global quantities (flow rate, pressure drop and nasal resistance) as well as local ones are affected. The type of flow forcing affects the outcome of the comparison between pre-op and post-op anatomies. Among the three available options, we argue that CPG is the least adequate. Arguments favouring either CFR or CPI are presented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.