4.4 Article

Sniffin' Sticks and olfactory system imaging in patients with Kallmann syndrome

Journal

INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF ALLERGY & RHINOLOGY
Volume 5, Issue 9, Pages 855-861

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alr.21550

Keywords

Kallmann syndrome; Sniffin' Sticks; odor identification; odor discrimination; odor threshold; n-butanol; MRI; olfactory bulb volume; olfactory sulcus depth; cortical thickness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThe relationship between olfactory function, rhinencephalon and forebrain changes in Kallmann syndrome (KS) have not been adequately investigated. We evaluated a large cohort of male KS patients using Sniffin' Sticks and MRI in order to study olfactory bulb (OB) volume, olfactory sulcus (OS) depth, cortical thickness close to the OS, and olfactory phenotype. MethodsOlfaction was assessed administering Sniffin' Sticks (R), in 38 KS patients and 17 controls (by means of Screening 12 test (R)). All subjects underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to study OB volume, sulcus depth, and cortical thickness. ResultsCompared to controls, KS patients showed smaller OB volume (p<0.0001), reduced sulcus depth (p<0.0001), and thicker cortex in the region close to the OS (p<0.0001). Anosmic KS patients had smaller OB than controls and hyposmic KS patients; there was no difference between hyposmic KS patients and controls. OB volume correlated with Sniffin' Sticks score (r = 0.64; p < 0.001), OS depth (p<0.0001) and, inversely, with cortical thickness changes (p<0.0001). Sniffin' Sticks showed an inverse correlation with cortical thickness (r = -0.5; p<0.0001) and a trend toward a statistically significant correlation with OS depth. ConclusionThe present study provides further evidence of the strict relationship between olfaction and OB volume. The strong correlation between OB volume and the overlying cortical changes highlights the key role of rhinencephalon in forebrain embryogenesis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available