METHODS: The participants were divided into control and allergic rhinitis groups based on the clinical symptoms and skin prick tests. The AR group was treated with intranasal corticosteroid after the diagnosis. The nasal fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) levels were compared between control and AR groups. In the AR group, the visual analogue scale (VAS), Nasal Obstruction Symptoms Evaluation (NOSE) questionnaire, and nasal fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were assessed pre- and post-treatment.
RESULTS: One hundred ten adults were enrolled. The nasal FeNO level was significantly higher in AR compared to control (p nasal FeNO, p nasal FeNO in the diagnosis of AR was 390.0 ppb (sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 80%) based on the receiver operator characteristic curve.
CONCLUSION: Nasal FeNO level is significantly higher in AR compared to control group with significant difference pre- and post-treatment. The findings suggest nasal FeNO can serve as an adjunct diagnostic tool together with the monitoring of treatment response in AR.
Case Report: We report a rare case of nasal angiomyolipoma in a young male. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first documented case of angiomyolipoma originating from the posterior end of the inferior turbinate, clinically mimicking juvenile nasopharyngeal angiofibroma (JNA). The tumor was removed completely via coblator-assisted endoscopic sinus surgery. The patient was asymptomatic at a 2-year follow-up.
Conclusion: Nasal AML located in the posterior nasal cavity in a male patient can mimic the presentation of JNA. A computed tomography scan of the paranasal sinuses played an important role in differentiating nasal AML from JNA. The coblator-assisted endoscopic technique is useful in controlling intraoperative hemostasis in the removal of a suspicious vascular tumor.
Case Report: We report the case of a 58-year-old woman who presented to us with a chief complaint of recurrent right-sided epistaxis and nasal blockage for the past 4 months, which was progressively worsening. Histopathological examination confirmed the presence of a REAH instead of a sinonasal malignancy. The tumor was surgically excised from the lateral nasal wall using electrocautery under endoscopic guidance. The patient was then carefully followed-up after surgery, and the wound was successfully healed 3 months after the initial surgery. There was no evidence of recurrence 6 months after the initial surgery.
Conclusion: This case demonstrates the rare presentation of a REAH, which had arisen from the lateral nasal wall. Clinically, it is difficult to distinguish a REAH from a more notorious mass such as a sinonasal malignancy. Therefore, biopsy is mandatory in all cases of lateral nasal mass in order to rule out malignancy before confirming nasal REAH. Fortunately, as seen in this case, a lateral nasal REAH, once diagnosed, can be safely and easily removed from the lateral nasal wall using electrocautery with good surgical outcomes and a low rate of recurrence.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on consecutive adults with non-allergic rhinitis. The reflux symptom index (score of more than 13 = laryngopharyngeal reflux) and nasal symptoms (categorised as mild (total score of 0-3), moderate (4-7) or severe (8-12)) were assessed.
RESULTS: The study included 227 participants (aged 58.64 ± 12.39 years, 59.5 per cent female). The reflux symptom index scores increased with total nasal symptom scores (mild vs moderate vs severe, 8.61 ± 6.27 vs 12.94 ± 7.4 vs 16.40 ± 8.10; p < 0.01). Logistic regression indicated that laryngopharyngeal reflux is more likely in patients with severe nose block (odds ratio 5.47 (95 per cent confidence interval = 2.16-13.87); p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms are associated with nasal symptom severity, and nasal symptoms should be primarily treated. Those with predominant nose block and laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms are more likely to have laryngopharyngeal reflux.
METHODS: Medline (1946-) and Embase (1947-) were searched until July 1, 2017. A search strategy was used to identify studies that reported NPIF values for defined healthy or disease states. All studies providing original data were included. The study population was defined as having either normal nasal breathing or nasal obstruction. A meta-analysis of the mean data was presented in forest plots, and data were presented as mean (95% confidence interval [CI]).
RESULTS: The search yielded 1,526 studies, of which 29 were included. The included studies involved 1,634 subjects with normal nasal breathing and 817 subjects with nasal obstruction. The mean NPIF value for populations with normal nasal breathing was 138.4 (95% CI: 127.9-148.8) L/min. The mean value for populations with nasal obstruction was 97.5 (95% CI: 86.1-108.8) L/min.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence confirms a difference between mean NPIF values of populations with and without nasal obstruction. The mean value of subjects with no nasal obstruction is 138.4 L/min, and the mean value of nasally obstructed populations is 97.5 L/min. Prospective studies adopting a standardized procedure are required to further assess normative NPIF values. Laryngoscope, 131:260-267, 2021.