Gerold Besser1, David T Liu1, Gunjan Sharma1, Tina J Bartosik1, Sebastian Kaphle1, Max Enßlin1, Bertold Renner2,3, Christian A Mueller4. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 2. Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. christian.a.mueller@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Testing olfaction should be an integral part of a clinical work-up in rhinosurgical procedures. Importantly, intact olfactory experience also includes retronasally perceived odors (retronasal olfaction). This study aimed at comprehensively assessing olfaction in patients undergoing rhinosurgical procedures in a comparative manner and evaluating relations to patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs). METHODS: Each nostril odor threshold and discrimination, and birhinal identification were tested using Sniffin' Sticks in 14 subjects assigned for septoplasty (SP), 21 for septorhinoplasty (SRP), and 30 for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The 27-Candy-Smell-Test was used to quantify retronasal abilities. Tests were repeated 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: Olfactory dysfunction was preoperatively present in 21% of SP, in 47.6% of SRP, and in 80% of ESS patients. Odor threshold side differences were most frequently found in SRP. Frequently, SRP and ESS patients showed severely impaired retronasal olfaction. Half of included subjects re-visited after 3 months, but olfactory function did not improve overall and rarely on an individual basis to a meaningful extent. Subjective ratings on nasal patency and PROMs were not associated with olfaction nor with changes in olfactory scores. CONCLUSION: Olfactory function can decisively be impaired a priori not only in patients awaiting sinus surgery, but also in those assigned for functional septorhinoplasty. This impairment may not improve in the short term, which has to be taken into account in patient counseling. This study adds to the current literature on olfaction in rhinosurgery with the extension of retronasal testing.
PURPOSE: Testing olfaction should be an integral part of a clinical work-up in rhinosurgical procedures. Importantly, intact olfactory experience also includes retronasally perceived odors (retronasal olfaction). This study aimed at comprehensively assessing olfaction in patients undergoing rhinosurgical procedures in a comparative manner and evaluating relations to patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs). METHODS: Each nostril odor threshold and discrimination, and birhinal identification were tested using Sniffin' Sticks in 14 subjects assigned for septoplasty (SP), 21 for septorhinoplasty (SRP), and 30 for endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The 27-Candy-Smell-Test was used to quantify retronasal abilities. Tests were repeated 3 months after surgery. RESULTS:Olfactory dysfunction was preoperatively present in 21% of SP, in 47.6% of SRP, and in 80% of ESSpatients. Odor threshold side differences were most frequently found in SRP. Frequently, SRP and ESSpatients showed severely impaired retronasal olfaction. Half of included subjects re-visited after 3 months, but olfactory function did not improve overall and rarely on an individual basis to a meaningful extent. Subjective ratings on nasal patency and PROMs were not associated with olfaction nor with changes in olfactory scores. CONCLUSION: Olfactory function can decisively be impaired a priori not only in patients awaiting sinus surgery, but also in those assigned for functional septorhinoplasty. This impairment may not improve in the short term, which has to be taken into account in patient counseling. This study adds to the current literature on olfaction in rhinosurgery with the extension of retronasal testing.
Authors: J Rimmer; P Hellings; V J Lund; I Alobid; T Beale; C Dassi; R Douglas; C Hopkins; L Klimek; B Landis; R Mosges; G Ottaviano; A Psaltis; P Surda; P V Tomazic; J Vent; W Fokkens Journal: Rhinology Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Stacey T Gray; Katie M Phillips; Lloyd P Hoehle; David S Caradonna; Ahmad R Sedaghat Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Arthur W Wu; Evan S Walgama; Thomas S Higgins; Michela Borrelli; Narine Vardanyan; Stephanie Hopp; Arash Shamsian; Martin L Hopp Journal: Am J Rhinol Allergy Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 2.467
Authors: Preeti Kohli; Akash N Naik; Zachary Farhood; Adrian A Ong; Shaun A Nguyen; Zachary M Soler; Rodney J Schlosser Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Joel James; Ilan C Palte; Brandon J Vilarello; Lucas G Axiotakis; Patricia T Jacobson; David A Gudis; Jonathan B Overdevest Journal: Front Allergy Date: 2022-08-31