scholarly journals Patient Adjustment to Reduced Olfactory Function

2011 ◽  
Vol 137 (4) ◽  
pp. 377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilona Croy ◽  
Basile N. Landis ◽  
Thomas Meusel ◽  
Han-Seok Seo ◽  
Franziska Krone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Olfactory Function ◽  
Patient Adjustment

Olfactory Function in Head Trauma Patients a Link to Frontal Brain Damage?

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Schriever ◽  
T. Hummel ◽  
K. Grosser ◽  
M. Smitka
Keyword(s):  
Brain Damage ◽  
Head Trauma ◽  
Olfactory Function ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Frontal Brain

Intraoperative monitoring of olfactory function: a feasibility study

2020 ◽  
Vol 132 (5) ◽  
pp. 1659-1664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahan Momjian ◽  
Rémi Tyrand ◽  
Basile N. Landis ◽  
Colette Boëx
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Intraoperative Neuromonitoring ◽  
Olfactory Function ◽  
Chemical Senses ◽  
Cerebral Lesions ◽  
Artifact Rejection ◽  
Rejection Criterion ◽  
Olfactory Stimuli ◽  
Anterior Fossa

OBJECTIVEIntraoperative neuromonitoring of the chemical senses (smell and taste) has never been performed. The objective of this study was to determine if olfactory-evoked potentials could be obtained intraoperatively under general anesthesia.METHODSA standard olfactometer was used in the surgical theater with hydrogen sulfide (4 ppm, 200 msec). Olfactory-evoked potentials were recorded in 8 patients who underwent neurosurgery for resection of cerebral lesions. These patients underwent routine target-controlled propofol and sufentanil general anesthesia. Frontal, temporal, and parietal scalp subdermal electrodes were recorded ipsilaterally and contralaterally at the site of the surgery. Evoked potentials were computed if at least 70 epochs (0.5–100 Hz) satisfying the artifact rejection criterion (threshold 45 μV) could be extracted from signals of electrodes.RESULTSContributive recordings were obtained for 5 of 8 patients (3 patients had fewer than 70 epochs with an amplitude < 45 μV). Olfactory-evoked potentials showed N1 responses (mean 442.8 ± 40.0 msec), most readily observed in the patient who underwent midline anterior fossa neurosurgery. No component of later latencies could be recorded consistently.CONCLUSIONSThe study confirms that olfactory-evoked potentials can be measured in response to olfactory stimuli under general anesthesia. This demonstrates the feasibility of recording olfactory function intraoperatively and opens the potential for neuromonitoring of olfactory function during neurosurgery.

Consequences of gaining olfactory function after lifelong anosmia

Neurocase ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Robert Pellegrino ◽  
Coralie Mignot ◽  
Charalampos Georgiopoulos ◽  
Antje Haehner ◽  
Thomas Hummel
Keyword(s):  
Olfactory Function

scholarly journals Postinfectious Olfactory Dysfunction: Oral Steroids and Olfactory Training versus Olfactory Training Alone: Is There any Benefit from Steroids?

ORL ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Sotiria Genetzaki ◽  
Evangelia Tsakiropoulou ◽  
Vasilios Nikolaidis ◽  
Konstantinos Markou ◽  
Iordanis Konstantinidis
Keyword(s):  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Olfactory Function ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Olfactory Testing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Oral Steroids ◽  
Group A ◽  
Olfactory Training ◽  
First Line Treatment

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> There are limited treatment options for postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD). Olfactory training has recently been used in clinical practice, but no medical treatment is widely accepted. Although there is weak evidence for their value, some physicians use oral corticosteroids as first-line treatment. The aim of this study was to compare combined oral methylprednisolone and olfactory training with olfactory training alone in the management of PIOD. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This prospective cohort study included 131 patients with PIOD over a 2-year period before the COVID-19 pandemic. Seventy-eight patients who were treated with oral methylprednisolone and olfactory training (group A) were compared with 53 patients who were treated with olfactory training only (group B). Olfactory function was evaluated with “Sniffin’ Sticks” at baseline and 2, 8, and 16 weeks after initial assessment. Patients who improved after steroid treatment underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the paranasal sinuses, skin prick tests, lung spirometry, and sputum eosinophil assessment. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Oral steroids improved 19.23% of patients (<i>n</i> = 15) of group A. History, clinical evaluation, imaging, and laboratory tests identified an inflammatory background in half of them (<i>n</i> = 8). The remaining 7 had no findings of nasal inflammation, and all had a short history of olfactory dysfunction. Both groups significantly improved in olfactory testing results at the end of the olfactory training scheme without significant difference between them. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The percentage of improved patients after oral methylprednisolone was relatively low to suggest it as first-line treatment. Half of the improved patients had an underlying upper airway inflammatory condition not related to the infection that caused the acute loss of olfactory function.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document