ArticleClinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology2024
Objective Parameters for Evaluating Internal Nasal Valve Compromise: Beyond the Angle Perspective.
Article in Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Nasal Tip Anatomy for Rhinoplasty Planning.Archives of plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy study of a spherical nasal vestibular stent.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesNasal valve surgery for internal nasal valve (INV) compromise has become increasingly popular. However, this rise in popularity has sparked debates regarding its indications and disputes over insurance coverage, primarily due to the lack of a gold-standard evaluation method. Therefore, we aimed to identify objective parameters for the INV compromise.
methodsWe analyzed 186 INVs in 93 patients who underwent nasal valve surgery. The data comprised facial computed tomography (CT) images, acoustic rhinometry, the modified Cottle test, and symptom scores. Patients were categorized based on their symptoms and the.
resultsof the modified Cottle test. We measured the INV angle, area, volume, lateral wall thickness, septal angle, and nasal bone area using CT.
resultsThe compromised INV group, characterized by nasal obstruction with a positive modified Cottle test, exhibited smaller INV areas in both coronal and axial views, reduced INV volume in the axial view, and a thinner lateral wall in the coronal view (all P<0.05). Acoustic rhinometry indicated a smaller minimal cross-sectional area and volume in the compromised INV group (both P<0.001). Regression analysis demonstrated significant associations between a compromised INV and reduced INV area on the axial view, as well as the minimal cross-sectional area measured by acoustic rhinometry.
conclusionRelying solely on the INV angle in CT scans has limitations in assessing compromised INV. Alternatively, the INV area on axial CT scans and the minimal cross-sectional area measured by acoustic rhinometry may serve as objective parameters for evaluating INV compromise.
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.