4.5 Article

Can Surgeons Predict the Olfactory Outcomes After Endoscopic Surgery for Nasal Polyposis?

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 125, 期 7, 页码 1535-1540

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25223

关键词

Endoscopic sinus surgery; nasal polyposis; olfactory clefts; ethmoidal labyrinths; respiratory epithelial adenomatoid hamartomas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis: The aim of this study is to identify predictors for olfactory outcomes in patients with nasal polyposis (NP) after surgery on the ethmoidal labyrinths, either with or without resection of the polyps of the olfactory cleft (OC). Study Design: Prospective study. Methods: Ninety-six patients endoscopically operated on for NP were enrolled in this study. Olfactory measurements were performed 1 day prior to surgery and 6 weeks after surgery, using odor thresholds and identification tests of the Sniffin' Sticks kit and a 0- to 10-point visual analog scale. The multivariate logistic regression model was also used to assess independent predictors for olfactory outcomes after surgery. Results: Twenty-seven patients with preoperative normosmia demonstrated normal olfactory function 6 weeks after surgery. Out of 69 patients with preoperative hypo-anosmia, 33 patients (47.83%) improved their olfactory function after surgery on the basis of the Sniffin' Sticks results. History of previous sinus surgery was reported by 77.78% of patients without olfactory improvement and by 51.52% with olfactory improvement (P=.022). By multivariate analysis, history of previous sinus surgery for NP remained a strong predictor of poor olfactory outcomes after surgery (adjusted odds ratio=4.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.29-13.32, P=.017). Histopathological types of lesions inside the OC as well as the resection of moderate/big lesions in the OC were not predictors of olfactory outcomes. Conclusions: The more previous sinus surgeries, the smaller the chance for patients to recover their olfactory function after each surgical revision.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据