4.4 Article

Anosmia and olfactory outcomes following paediatric traumatic brain injury

Journal

BRAIN INJURY
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 191-198

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02699052.2015.1089597

Keywords

olfactory dysfunction; Traumatic brain injury; anosmia; child; smell

Funding

  1. Victorian Neurotrauma Initiative, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute
  2. Victorian Government Operational Infrastructure Scheme
  3. University of Melbourne, Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Research into olfactory dysfunction (OD) following paediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) is limited. The current study investigated the frequency of OD following paediatric TBI and the relationship between OD and injury characteristics including severity, site of impact and cause of injury. It was hypothesized that children with moderate/severe TBI would demonstrate greater OD than those with mild TBI. Design/method: Thirty-seven children aged 8-16 with TBI were recruited to a prospective longitudinal study at a metropolitan children's hospital. Olfactory assessment, using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, was completed at 0-3 months post-injury. Results: Nineteen per cent of participants demonstrated impaired olfaction, while a small number (5%) were anosmic. A significant relationship between OD and severity of injury was found. No other injury variables demonstrated a significant relationship with olfactory outcomes. Conclusions: OD was relatively common in this paediatric TBI cohort and the hypothesized relationship with severity of injury was supported. It is recommended that information about OD after TBI be routinely provided to children and families. Further research is needed in larger cohorts to support the implementation of routine clinical assessment, understand the relationship between OD and other injury characteristics, determine the functional implications of OD and document recovery trajectories.

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