Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
OBJECTIVE: To create a clinical consensus statement to address ambiguities and disparities in the diagnosis and management of nasal valve compromise (NVC). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: An updated systematic review of the literature was conducted. In addition, a Modified Delphi Method was used to refine expert opinion and facilitate a consensus position. RESULTS: After two rounds of surveys and conference calls, 36 items reached consensus, six items reached near consensus, and 10 items reached no consensus. The categories that had the greatest percentage of consensus or near consensus items were as follows: definition, history and physical examination, outcome measures, and management. Conversely, the categories with greater percentage of no consensus items were adjunctive tests and coding. CONCLUSION: The consensus panel agreed that NVC is a distinct clinical entity that is best evaluated with history and physical examination findings. Endoscopy and photography are useful but not routinely indicated, whereas radiographic studies are not useful in evaluating NVC. Other objective nasal outcome measures may not be useful or accepted for NVC. Nasal steroid medication is not useful for treatment of NVC in the absence of rhinitis, and mechanical treatments may be useful in selected patients. Surgical treatment is the primary mode of treatment of NVC, but bill coding remains ambiguous and confusing.
Rhee et al. (Thu,) studied this question.