Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
The Diagnostic Value of Traditional Nasal Examination Tools in an Endoscopic Era.
Chainansamit, Seksun; Chit-Uea-Ophat, Chonthicha; Reechaipichitkul, Wisoot; Piromchai, Patorn.
Afiliação
  • Chainansamit S; Department of Otorhinolaryngology, 37690Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
  • Chit-Uea-Ophat C; Department of Otorhinolaryngology, 37690Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
  • Reechaipichitkul W; Department of Otorhinolaryngology, 37690Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
  • Piromchai P; Department of Otorhinolaryngology, 37690Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Ear Nose Throat J ; 100(3): 167-171, 2021 Mar.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31547699
BACKGROUND: As the endoscope has become more common in the otolaryngologist's office, there is a need to reevaluate the value of traditional nasal examination methods. The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of traditional nasal examination tools compared to those of the rigid endoscope. METHODS: A prospective diagnostic study was conducted. Eligible patients with nasal symptoms were recruited and examined using 4 tools: (1) a nasal speculum, (2) an otoscope, (3) a posterior rhinoscopy mirror, and (4) a rigid nasal endoscope. The diagnostic value of each tool was evaluated. RESULTS: There were a total of 53 patients eligible for inclusion in the study. The mean age of all patients was 40.9 years. The most common nasal symptom was nasal obstruction (90.6%). With regard to the tools used in anterior rhinoscopy, the nasal speculum had a sensitivity of 54.69% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 41.75-67.18) and specificity of 88.10% (95% CI: 74.37-96.02); and the otoscope had a sensitivity of 57.81% (95% CI: 44.82-70.06) and specificity of 85.71% (95% CI: 71.46-94.57). After application of topical anesthesia and decongestant, the nasal speculum had a sensitivity of 67.19% (95% CI: 54.31-78.41) and specificity of 85.71% (95% CI: 71.46-94.57); and the otoscope had a sensitivity of 65.62% (95% CI: 52.70-77.05) and specificity of 83.33% (95% CI: 68.64-93.03). The posterior rhinoscopy mirror had a sensitivity of 12.50% (95% CI: 5.18-24.07) and specificity of 94.00% (95% CI: 83.45-98.75). All adverse events in this study were minor. CONCLUSION: The traditional nasal examination tools exhibited excellent specificity. However, the sensitivity was only average, meaning that they may not be suitable for screening. We do not recommend routine use of topical anesthesia and decongestants when applying these tools, as the application of these agents did not improve the clinical sensitivity or specificity. The posterior rhinoscopy mirror had a lowest sensitivity. We thus do not recommend using a posterior rhinoscopy mirror to rule out pathologies of the posterior nasal cavity.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Otolaringologia / Obstrução Nasal / Doenças Nasais / Avaliação de Sintomas Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Ear Nose Throat J Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Tailândia País de publicação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Otolaringologia / Obstrução Nasal / Doenças Nasais / Avaliação de Sintomas Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Ear Nose Throat J Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Tailândia País de publicação: Estados Unidos