Understanding the mismatch between in-vivo and in-silico rhinomanometry

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
Published
2025-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-025-03450-7
Primary Topic
Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Understanding the mismatch between in-vivo and in-silico rhinomanometry

Maurizio Quadrio, Gabriele Dini Ciacci, Marco Atzori
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
article

Understanding the mismatch between in-vivo and in-silico rhinomanometry

Maurizio Quadrio, Gabriele Dini Ciacci, Marco Atzori
article en

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.

Medical & Biological Engineering & ComputingVol. 64(1)
Politecnico di Milano (IT)
Università degli Studi di Milano, European Commission
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.