4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

The role of trigeminal function in the sensation of nasal obstruction in chronic rhinosinusitis

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 126, 期 5, 页码 E174-E178

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25952

关键词

Trigeminal sensation; nasal obstruction; chronic rhinosinusitis; olfaction; inflammation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/HypothesisTrigeminal sensation (TS) within the nasal cavity is important for the perception of nasal airflow. The objective of this study is to examine whether impaired TS contributes to the sensation of nasal obstruction in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Study DesignProspective case-control study conducted in a tertiary referral rhinology clinic. MethodsCases consisted of CRS patients with subjective nasal obstruction, not previously treated with oral corticoids. Controls consisted of patients without CRS. Neither group demonstrated obvious anatomical obstructions. Both groups underwent peak nasal inspiratory flows (PNIF), olfactory testing (quick eight-item odor identification test), and trigeminal testing (lateralization task using eucalyptol and odorless solvent). ResultsA total of 28 subjects (14 CRS patients and 14 controls) were recruited. Analyses revealed no statistical differences in age (P = .93), gender (P = .47), or PNIF (P = .82) between the two groups, but they differed in Lund-Mackay scores (P < .001). There was no significant difference in olfactory testing (P = .15). CRS patients had significantly lower scores on trigeminal lateralization testing than controls (P = .007). Linear regression revealed that Lund-Mackay scores contributed a significant amount of variance to trigeminal lateralization scores, controlling for age and sex (F = 5.93, P = .004, R-2 = 0.43). ConclusionsThis is the first study to demonstrate that patients with CRS have lower TS than healthy controls. Our results suggest defective TS could play a role in the sensation of nasal obstruction in CRS. Level of Evidence3b. Laryngoscope, 126:E174-E178, 2016

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据