4.5 Article

Postinfectious olfactory loss: A retrospective study on 791 patients

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 128, Issue 1, Pages 10-15

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.26606

Keywords

Postinfectious olfactory loss; recovery; smell disorders; Sniffin' Sticks

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG HU411/18-1]
  2. Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences [M14-0375:1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives/HypothesisPostinfectious olfactory loss is among the most common causes of olfactory impairment and has substantial negative impact on patients' quality of life. Recovery rates have been shown to spontaneously improve in most of patients, usually within 2 to 3 years. However, existing studies are limited by small sample sizes and short follow-up. We aimed to assess the prognostic factors for recovery in a large sample of 791 patients with postinfectious olfactory disorders. Study DesignRetrospective cohort. MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of 791 patients with postinfectious olfactory loss. Olfactory functions were assessed using the Sniffin' Sticks test at the first and final visits (mean follow-up = 1.94 years). ResultsSmell test scores improved over time. In particular, patient's age and the odor threshold (T), odor discrimination (D), and odor identification (I) (TDI) score at first visit were significant predictors of the extent of change. The percentage of anosmic and hyposmic patients exhibiting clinically significant improvement was 46% and 35%, respectively. ConclusionsThis study provides new evidence within the postinfectious olfactory loss literature, shedding light on the prognostic factors and showing that recovery of olfactory function is very frequent, even many years after the infection. Level of Evidence4. Laryngoscope, 128:10-15, 2018

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