Eric H Holbrook1,2, Lina Rebeiz2, James E Schwob2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Developmental, Molecular, and Chemical Biology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Requests from researchers for olfactory mucosal biopsies are increasing as a result of advances in the fields of neuroscience and stem cell biology. Published studies report variable rates of success in obtaining true olfactory tissue, often below 50%. In cases where biopsies are not obtained carefully and confirmed through histological techniques, erroneous conclusions are made. Attention to the epithelium alone without submucosal analysis may add to the confusion. A consistent biopsy technique can help rhinologists obtain higher yields of olfactory mucosa. Confirmatory tissue staining analysis assures olfactory mucosa has been obtained, thereby strengthening clinical correlations and scientific conclusions. METHODS: Biopsies of the septum within the anterior olfactory cleft were obtained under endoscopic guidance in an office procedure room using topical local anesthetic (lidocaine). After mucosal incision, a small, cupped, biopsy forceps was used to obtain specimens approximately 2 to 3 mm in size. Specimens were sectioned and analyzed with immunohistochemistry for presence of olfactory epithelium and/or olfactory fascicles. RESULTS: A total of 14 subjects were biopsied in this analysis. Four subjects had biopsies in the operating room (OR). The remaining 10 underwent biopsies in the clinic. All biopsies obtained in the OR revealed evidence of olfactory mucosa. Of the 10 clinic biopsies, 8 (80%) revealed evidence of olfactory mucosa. No complications were encountered. CONCLUSION: High yields of olfactory mucosa can be obtained safely in an office-based setting. Technique, including attention to the area of biopsy, and confirmatory analysis are important in assuring presence of olfactory tissue.
BACKGROUND: Requests from researchers for olfactory mucosal biopsies are increasing as a result of advances in the fields of neuroscience and stem cell biology. Published studies report variable rates of success in obtaining true olfactory tissue, often below 50%. In cases where biopsies are not obtained carefully and confirmed through histological techniques, erroneous conclusions are made. Attention to the epithelium alone without submucosal analysis may add to the confusion. A consistent biopsy technique can help rhinologists obtain higher yields of olfactory mucosa. Confirmatory tissue staining analysis assures olfactory mucosa has been obtained, thereby strengthening clinical correlations and scientific conclusions. METHODS: Biopsies of the septum within the anterior olfactory cleft were obtained under endoscopic guidance in an office procedure room using topical local anesthetic (lidocaine). After mucosal incision, a small, cupped, biopsy forceps was used to obtain specimens approximately 2 to 3 mm in size. Specimens were sectioned and analyzed with immunohistochemistry for presence of olfactory epithelium and/or olfactory fascicles. RESULTS: A total of 14 subjects were biopsied in this analysis. Four subjects had biopsies in the operating room (OR). The remaining 10 underwent biopsies in the clinic. All biopsies obtained in the OR revealed evidence of olfactory mucosa. Of the 10 clinic biopsies, 8 (80%) revealed evidence of olfactory mucosa. No complications were encountered. CONCLUSION: High yields of olfactory mucosa can be obtained safely in an office-based setting. Technique, including attention to the area of biopsy, and confirmatory analysis are important in assuring presence of olfactory tissue.
Authors: D C Lanza; D A Deems; R L Doty; D Moran; D Crawford; J C Rowley; A Sajjadian; D W Kennedy Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 1994-07 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: K E Borgmann-Winter; N E Rawson; H-Y Wang; H Wang; M L Macdonald; M H Ozdener; K K Yee; G Gomez; J Xu; B Bryant; G Adamek; N Mirza; E Pribitkin; C-G Hahn Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2008-10-17 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: Zachary M Soler; Frederick Yoo; Rodney J Schlosser; Jennifer Mulligan; Vijay R Ramakrishnan; Daniel M Beswick; Jeremiah A Alt; Jose L Mattos; Spencer C Payne; Kristina A Storck; Timothy L Smith Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Conner J Massey; Fernando Diaz Del Valle; Waleed M Abuzeid; Joshua M Levy; Sarina Mueller; Corrina G Levine; Stephanie S Smith; Benjamin S Bleier; Vijay R Ramakrishnan Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Ellen Cristine Duarte Garcia; Ana Carolina Rossaneis; Alexandre Salvatore Pipino; Gustavo Vasconcelos Gomes; Fábio de Rezende Pinna; Richard Louis Voegels; Richard L Doty; Waldiceu Aparecido Verri; Marco Aurélio Fornazieri Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Mira Fitzek; Parthkumar K Patel; Peter D Solomon; Brian Lin; Thomas Hummel; James E Schwob; Eric H Holbrook Journal: J Comp Neurol Date: 2022-04-09 Impact factor: 3.028
Authors: Naazneen Khan; Yelena Alimova; Sophie J Clark; Hemendra J Vekaria; Adeline E Walsh; Holden C Williams; Gregory S Hawk; Patrick G Sullivan; Lance A Johnson; Timothy S McClintock Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.160
Authors: Timothy L Smith; Rodney J Schlosser; Zachary M Soler; Jess C Mace; Jose L Mattos; Vijay R Ramakrishnan; Daniel M Beswick; Jeremiah A Alt; Jennifer K Mulligan Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 5.426