4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Factors driving olfactory loss in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis: a case control study

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alr.22445

关键词

olfaction; chemosensory; sinusitis; surgery; polyp

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Olfactory dysfunction (OD) in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is common. It is likely that numerous factors such as sex, race, age, allergies, asthma, smoking, and other comorbidities play a role in CRS-related OD. In order to determine which aspects of OD are due solely to CRS and which are associated with other confounders, control populations are needed to allow appropriate risk assessments. Methods Prospective, multi-institutional enrollment of patients with CRS and control subjects without CRS was performed. Demographic information, comorbidities, and olfactory testing (Sniffin' Sticks) of threshold (T), discrimination (D), and identification (I) scores (TDI) was collected. Results A total of 224 patients with CRS and 164 control subjects were enrolled. Olfaction was worse in CRS patients compared to controls (mean +/- standard deviation (SD) TDI = 22.4 +/- 9.5 vs 28.8 +/- 7.0, respectively, p < 0.001). Only 27% of CRS patients were normosmic compared to 49% of controls (p < 0.001). When stratifying by nasal polyp (NP) status, CRSwNP patients had significant impairments in TDI, T, D, and I compared to controls with mean differences of 11.2, 3.3, 3.5, and 4.4 points, respectively (all p < 0.001). In contrast, CRSsNP patients only had impaired T when compared to controls with a mean difference of 2.2 points (p < 0.001). Multivariate modeling of TDI scoring showed that OD was driven by polyps, asthma, diabetes, and age. CRSsNP was not independently associated with worse TDI scores. Conclusion OD in CRS patients is multifactorial. Independent drivers appear to be polyp status, asthma, diabetes, and age. OD in patients with CRSsNP is similar to controls with the exception of impaired thresholds.

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

4.4
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