4.5 Article

Safety and efficacy of superior turbinate biopsies as a source of olfactory epithelium appropriate for morphological analysis

Journal

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
Volume 277, Issue 2, Pages 483-492

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-019-05728-7

Keywords

Smell; Immunohistochemistry; Smell tests; Morphology; Nasal mucosa; Olfactory function

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose There is no standardized approach for preserving olfactory function in the side of the nose where biopsy of the olfactory epithelium (OE) is performed. Moreover, a gold standard technique for obtaining human OE in vivo is still lacking. We determined the efficacy of obtaining good-quality OE specimens suitable for pathological analysis from the lower half of the superior turbinate and verified the safety of this procedure in maintaining bilateral and unilateral olfactory function. Methods In 21 individuals without olfactory complaints and who had undergone septoplasty and inferior turbinectomy OE biopsy was made during septoplasty. Olfactory function, both unilateral and bilateral, was assessed using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) before and 1 month after the procedure. Specimens were marked with the olfactory marker protein for confirmation of OE presence. Results Ninety percent of the samples contained OE, although clear histological characterization was possible from only 62%. There was no deterioration of UPSIT scores either bilaterally or unilaterally on the side of the biopsy. Patients also maintained the ability to identify individual odorants. Conclusion Biopsies of the lower half of the superior turbinate do not affect olfactory function and show strong efficacy in yielding OE tissue and moderate efficacy for yielding tissue appropriate for morphological analysis. Future studies are needed to assess the safety of this procedure in other OE regions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available