Numerical simulations and clinical measurements of nasal resistance are in quantitative disagreement. The order of magnitude of this mismatch, that sometimes exceeds 100%, is such that known sources of uncertainty cannot explain it. The goal of the present work is to examine a source of bias introduced by the design of medical devices, which has not been considered until now as a possible explanation. We study the effect of the location of the probe on the rhinomanometer that is meant to measure the ambient pressure. Rhinomanometry is carried out on a 3D silicone model of a patient-specific anatomy; a clinical device and dedicated sensors are employed side-by-side for mutual validation. The same anatomy is also employed for numerical simulations, with approaches spanning a wide range of fidelity levels. We find that the intrinsic uncertainty of the numerical simulations is of minor importance. To the contrary, the position of the pressure tap intended to acquire the external pressure in the clinical device is crucial, and can cause a mismatch comparable to that generally observed between in-silico and in-vivo rhinomanometry data. A source of systematic bias may therefore exist in rhinomanometers, designed under the assumption that measurements of the nasal resistance are unaffected by the flow development within the instruments.
Understanding the mismatch between in-vivo and in-silico rhinomanometry
Atzori, Marco;Quadrio, Maurizio
2025-01-01
Abstract
Numerical simulations and clinical measurements of nasal resistance are in quantitative disagreement. The order of magnitude of this mismatch, that sometimes exceeds 100%, is such that known sources of uncertainty cannot explain it. The goal of the present work is to examine a source of bias introduced by the design of medical devices, which has not been considered until now as a possible explanation. We study the effect of the location of the probe on the rhinomanometer that is meant to measure the ambient pressure. Rhinomanometry is carried out on a 3D silicone model of a patient-specific anatomy; a clinical device and dedicated sensors are employed side-by-side for mutual validation. The same anatomy is also employed for numerical simulations, with approaches spanning a wide range of fidelity levels. We find that the intrinsic uncertainty of the numerical simulations is of minor importance. To the contrary, the position of the pressure tap intended to acquire the external pressure in the clinical device is crucial, and can cause a mismatch comparable to that generally observed between in-silico and in-vivo rhinomanometry data. A source of systematic bias may therefore exist in rhinomanometers, designed under the assumption that measurements of the nasal resistance are unaffected by the flow development within the instruments.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
ATZOM01-25.pdf
accesso aperto
:
Publisher’s version
Dimensione
1.63 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.63 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


