The Reliability and Influence of Body Position on Acoustic Pharyngometry and Rhinometry Outcomes.

IF 1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.5037/jomr.2020.11401
Sofie Wilkens Knappe, Liselotte Sonnesen
{"title":"The Reliability and Influence of Body Position on Acoustic Pharyngometry and Rhinometry Outcomes.","authors":"Sofie Wilkens Knappe,&nbsp;Liselotte Sonnesen","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2020.11401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this cross sectional study was to analyze the method error and reliability in acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometry and to analyze the difference between standing and sitting position in acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometry.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The sample comprised 38 healthy subjects (11 men and 27 women) as part of a control group in another study. The subjects underwent repeated measures of acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometry in standing and sitting position. Upper airway dimensions in terms of volume, minimum cross-sectional areas (MCA) and distances were evaluated using the Eccovision<sup>®</sup> Acoustic Pharyngometer and Rhinometer. Method error and reliability were analyzed using paired t-test, Dahlberg's formula and the Houston reliability coefficient, and differences between body positions were analyzed using paired t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no systematic error in the repeated measures except for the distance to MCA in the left nostril in sitting position (P = 0.041). The method error for the pharyngometry ranged between 0.001 to 0.164 cm/cm<sup>2</sup>/cm<sup>3</sup> and the reliabity was 0.99. The method error for rhinometry ranged between 0.001 to 0.37 cm/cm<sup>2</sup>/cm<sup>3</sup> and the reliability between 0.99 to 1. Difference between standing and sitting position was found only in the pharyngeal airway in terms of volume (P = 0.025) and mean area (P = 0.009) with smaller airway in sitting position.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results indicate that acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometry are reliable methods to perform repeated measures of the upper airway dimensions especially in the standing mirror position. It may be essential to perform the measures with the patient positioned in the same body position each time.</p>","PeriodicalId":53254,"journal":{"name":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c5/1b/jomr-11-e1.PMC7875104.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2020.11401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this cross sectional study was to analyze the method error and reliability in acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometry and to analyze the difference between standing and sitting position in acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometry.

Material and methods: The sample comprised 38 healthy subjects (11 men and 27 women) as part of a control group in another study. The subjects underwent repeated measures of acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometry in standing and sitting position. Upper airway dimensions in terms of volume, minimum cross-sectional areas (MCA) and distances were evaluated using the Eccovision® Acoustic Pharyngometer and Rhinometer. Method error and reliability were analyzed using paired t-test, Dahlberg's formula and the Houston reliability coefficient, and differences between body positions were analyzed using paired t-test.

Results: There was no systematic error in the repeated measures except for the distance to MCA in the left nostril in sitting position (P = 0.041). The method error for the pharyngometry ranged between 0.001 to 0.164 cm/cm2/cm3 and the reliabity was 0.99. The method error for rhinometry ranged between 0.001 to 0.37 cm/cm2/cm3 and the reliability between 0.99 to 1. Difference between standing and sitting position was found only in the pharyngeal airway in terms of volume (P = 0.025) and mean area (P = 0.009) with smaller airway in sitting position.

Conclusions: The results indicate that acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometry are reliable methods to perform repeated measures of the upper airway dimensions especially in the standing mirror position. It may be essential to perform the measures with the patient positioned in the same body position each time.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
体位对声学咽鼻测量结果的可靠性及影响。
目的:本横断面研究的目的是分析声学咽鼻测量方法的误差和可靠性,并分析站立和坐姿声学咽鼻测量的差异。材料和方法:样本包括38名健康受试者(11名男性和27名女性),作为另一项研究的对照组的一部分。受试者在站立和坐姿时反复进行声学咽测和鼻测。使用Eccovision®声学咽计和鼻计评估上呼吸道体积、最小横截面积(MCA)和距离方面的尺寸。采用配对t检验、Dahlberg公式和Houston信度系数分析方法误差和信度,采用配对t检验分析体位之间的差异。结果:除坐位左鼻孔距MCA距离外,重复测量无系统误差(P = 0.041)。方法误差范围为0.001 ~ 0.164 cm/cm2/cm3,信度为0.99。方法误差范围为0.001 ~ 0.37 cm/cm2/cm3,信度范围为0.99 ~ 1。站位与坐姿仅在咽部气道体积(P = 0.025)和平均面积(P = 0.009)上存在差异,坐位气道较小。结论:声学咽测和鼻测是重复测量上呼吸道尺寸的可靠方法,尤其在立镜体位时。这可能是必要的执行措施,病人定位在相同的身体位置,每次。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Outcome Difference between Short and Longer Dental Implants Placed Simultaneously with Alveolar Bone Augmentation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Use of Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Sinus Floor Augmentation Surgery: a Systematic Review. Attitudes of Oral Surgeons and Periodontists towards Immediate Dental Implant Placement. Can CAPRIN-1 Be Responsible for the Recurrence Potential of Odontogenic Keratocysts? Dental Implant Placement in the Maxilla Following Ridge Augmentation with Free Iliac Bone Graft and Oral Rehabilitation with Fixed Prosthesis: a Three-Year Follow-Up Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1