ENSTipsENSTips
Fluid simulation

Aurélien

Author: Aurélien RUMIANO · 5 August 2026
200300 0600 0 mm² HIGH Mean section Normal 200–300 mm²
717 030 0 Pa LOW Nasal resistance Normal 7–17 Pa

Introduction

Parameters of the study. Flow used for the fluid study 15 l/min. Inspiration phase. Mucosa at 34 °C.
Disclaimer. I am neither a fluid mechanics researcher nor a doctor. The results I obtain using my fluid simulation software may be approximate. The purpose of these fluid simulations is to give you an idea of the air flow and possible problems related to it.

The illustration below represents the nasal cavity, the anterior part in red, the middle meatus in green and finally the inferior meatus in blue.

The following illustration represents the negative of the nasal cavity, that is to say the air which is inside the nasal cavity. All illustrations that follow will be represented in this manner. The block that sticks the nostrils simply represents the air around it.

Nasal cavity: anterior part (red), middle meatus (green), inferior meatus (blue).
Nasal cavity: anterior part (red), middle meatus (green), inferior meatus (blue).
3D model
3D model

CT-scan

Cut 1
Cut 1
Cut 2
Cut 2
Cut 3
Cut 3

Right side: We can see that the right turbinate is almost completely cuted, just a little bit of the head remains. In red it is a cartilage implant mostly positionned in the anterior part.

Left side: On the left side we can say that around 50% of the left turbinate is missing.

We can also see that the septum is still twisted despite septoplasty. The right middle turbinate is almost absent due to the twisted nasal septum which has compressed it.

Airflow velocity

Airflow streamlines
0 mm from nostrils
0 mm from nostrils
10 mm from nostrils
10 mm from nostrils
20 mm from nostrils
20 mm from nostrils
30 mm from nostrils
30 mm from nostrils
40 mm from nostrils
40 mm from nostrils
Velocity (m/s)

Description & analysis

The current lines represent the air flow, the speed scale goes from 0 to 2.5 m/s. Speeds above 2.5 m/s are shown in red.

The flow of air which passes mainly through the middle meatus is apparently a characteristic of ENS. The airflow velocity is a little higher in the lower meatus in the right side compared to the left side due to the cartilage implant.

In the red zone the airflow is accelerated due to a section restriction, so no volume should be added to this zone.

Wall shear stress

WSS max 0.2 Pa
0 mm from nostrils
0 mm from nostrils
10 mm from nostrils
10 mm from nostrils
20 mm from nostrils
20 mm from nostrils
30 mm from nostrils
30 mm from nostrils
40 mm from nostrils
40 mm from nostrils
Wall shear stress (Pa)

Description

The areas colored red represent areas where the WSS is greater than 0.2 Pa. That is to say, these are the areas where the air rubs the most against the mucosa and therefore creates the most air sensation.

We can see that the areas where the WSS is the highest are mainly the anterior part and to a lesser extent the middle meatus. This is not surprising given that there is almost no airflow into the inferior meatus.

Airflow imbalance

Airflow distribution between the two sides
Airflow distribution between the two sides

49% of the airflow passes through the right side and therefore 51% on the left.

The flow ratio between the two sides is 1.03.
So the airflow is well balanced between the two sides.

Nasal resistance

Pressure field
Pressure field
Pressure (Pa)

Description & analysis

The right nostril is more colored than the left, this means that the pressure loss is higher on the right than on the left. However the imbalance is quite low.
The nasal resistance, measured from the nostrils to the choana, is about 6.2 Pa. In a CFD study [1] of 35 subjects at the same flow rate (15 l/min), healthy noses fell between 7 and 17 Pa and post-surgical empty noses below 5.5 Pa.
1.Esteban-Ortega F, Rosique-López L, Ochoa-Ríos JA, Rodríguez-Romero R, Burgos-Olmos MA. Empty nose syndrome: new insights from a CFD approach. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2025;282:1319–1326. doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-09122-w


Cross-sectional area

Cross-sectional area compared with the control group
Cross-sectional area compared with the control group

The further away from the nostrils, the bigger the cross sectional area is. It is of course the consequence of the turbinectomy. The section is stabilised at around 350 mm² which is around 100mm² bigger than the control group.

The data of the control group are pulled from a study [2], but I have seen some non ENS case at around 300 mm². So I think that between 200 and 300 mm² the values can be considered normal.

Air temperature

0 mm from nostrils
0 mm from nostrils
10 mm from nostrils
10 mm from nostrils
20 mm from nostrils
20 mm from nostrils
30 mm from nostrils
30 mm from nostrils
40 mm from nostrils
40 mm from nostrils
Air temperature

Temperature of the air along the cavity (0 to 40 mm from the nostrils).
The simulation assumes a well-perfused mucosa at 34 °C. On an atrophic mucosa the actual warming is lower: these values compare one anatomy with another rather than predicting a measurement.


We can see that at 40 mm from the nostril, there are still zones at 29°C, which seem to be a bit low.


Conclusion

A lot of volume is missing on the right in the middle and posterior part. The cartilage implant only added volume in the anterior part. On the left there is also a lack of volume all along, especially between the turbinate and the floor. Most of the airflow passes through the middle meatus, the airflow imbalance is normal. 

SituationNasal resistance (Pa)Mean cross-sectional area (mm²)Mean mucosa perimeter (mm)Mean velocity (m/s)Mean WSS (Pa)Air temperature at 40 mm (°C)Pharynx size (mm²)
Actual6.23473050.810.04732.1196
After virtual implants

References

  1. Esteban-Ortega F, Rosique-López L, Ochoa-Ríos JA, Rodríguez-Romero R, Burgos-Olmos MA. Empty nose syndrome: new insights from a CFD approach. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2025;282:1319–1326. doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-09122-w
  2. Li C, Farag AA, Leach J, Deshpande B, Jacobowitz A, Kim K, Otto BA, Zhao K. Computational fluid dynamics and trigeminal sensory examinations of empty nose syndrome patients. Laryngoscope 2017;127(6):E176–E184. doi.org/10.1002/lary.26530