4.5 Article

Olfactory Cleft Width and Volume: Possible Risk Factors for Postinfectious Olfactory Dysfunction

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 131, 期 1, 页码 5-9

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.28524

关键词

Postviral olfactory loss; postinfectious olfactory dysfunction; upper respiratory tract infection; olfactory cleft

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study retrospectively investigated the anatomical features of the olfactory cleft in patients with postviral or postinfectious olfactory loss (PIOL). The results showed that patients with PIOL had significantly increased OC width and volume than the healthy controls, suggesting an extra-wide olfactory cleft as a predisposing factor for PIOL.
Objectives/Hypothesis Upper respiratory tract infections are a common cause of temporary and permanent olfactory dysfunction in the general population. Postviral or postinfectious olfactory loss (PIOL) develops only in rare cases. The aim of this study was to investigate the anatomical features of olfactory cleft (OC) in patients with PIOL to shed light on possible predisposing factors for PIOL. Study Design Retrospective study. Methods We retrospectively evaluated paranasal sinus computed tomography (CT) scan results of patients diagnosed with PIOL. A control group consisted of normosmic individuals who underwent paranasal sinus CT scans before septoplasty surgery. We compared the olfactory fossa depth, OC width, and volume on the CT scans of the PIOL and control groups. Results In total, 71 individuals fulfilled the study criteria (PIOL group, n = 32; control group, n = 39). There was no statistically significant difference in the olfactory fossa depth in the two groups. The OC width and volume in the PIOL group was found to be significantly increased than that in the control group (P < .001 for both). Conclusions Patients with PIOL had increased OC width and volume than the healthy controls. An extra-wide olfactory cleft may be a predisposing factor in the pathogenesis of PIOL. Level of Evidence 4 Laryngoscope, 2020

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