4.4 Article

Olfactory and sinonasal outcomes in endoscopic transsphenoidal skull-base surgery

Journal

INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF ALLERGY & RHINOLOGY
Volume 3, Issue 3, Pages 217-220

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alr.21103

Keywords

smell; nasal function; skull base; pituitary surgery; endoscopic surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Endoscopic anterior skull-base surgery has been previously suggested to cause a significant deterioration in olfactory function. Given the impact on quality of life, the objective of this study was to determine the effect of a unilateral middle-turbinatesacrificing approach on olfactory function and sinonasal outcome. Methods Prospective cohort study comparing olfactory and sinonasal outcomes pre- and post-transsphenoidal skull-base surgery. Olfaction was the primary outcome and was measured prospectively using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (SIT). Sinonasal symptoms were assessed subjectively via sinonasal-specific questions from the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), and objectively via the Lund-Kennedy Endoscopic Scoring system (LKES). Results Twenty-two patients met study inclusion criteria and completed all data acquisition. The mean preoperative SIT score was 34.8 and the mean postoperative SIT value was 35.1 (p = 0.37). The average change in score (delta) was an increase of 0.3, with changes ranging from 3 to +4. When examined categorically, 91% of patients maintained their preoperative olfactory function classification. There was no significant difference in mean pre- and postoperative symptom scores. A small increase in the LKES was noted, from a mean of 0.6 to 2.5 (p = 0.001) in the early postoperative period. Conclusion Olfactory function, as measured by the SIT test, was preserved with a middle-turbinatesacrificing skull-base approach. Subjective sinonasal symptom scores were unaffected, but a slight worsening of objective endoscopic appearance was noted.

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