ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Anosmia and hyposmia significantly affect patients' quality of life and have many etiologies, including trauma, inflammatory conditions including chronic rhinosinusitis, neoplasm, and viral infections, such as rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to establish whether a consensus exists regarding optimal management of olfactory dysfunction and to provide insight into the treatment of anosmia in the current climate of increased prevalence secondary to COVID-19. Thus, we aimed to systematically review the literature on the management of non-Chronic-rhinosinusitis- related anosmia/hyposmia. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published since January 1990 using terms combined with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). We included articles evaluating management of anosmia and hyposmia written in the English language, with original data, a minimum of 3 months of follow-up except for COVID-related studies, at least 2 patients, and well-defined and measurable outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3013 unique titles were returned upon the initial search. Of these, 297 abstracts were examined, yielding 19 full texts meeting inclusion criteria (8 with level 1 evidence, 3 with level 2, 1 with level 3, and 7 with level 4). The studies included a total of 1522 subjects, with follow up ranging from 3 to 72 months, with an exception for COVID related studies. Endpoints were based on clinically significant improvements of olfactory functions as measured through validated smell tests. Treatments with the most robust data were intranasal corticosteroids and olfactory training. CONCLUSION: The literature on the treatment of anosmia and hyposmia includes randomized trials showing the efficacy of a few modalities. While further research is needed to expand therapeutic options for this debilitating condition, the current literature supports the use of olfactory training and topical corticosteroids.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to healthcare workers through airborne aerosolization during otologic surgery has not been characterized. The objective of this study was to describe and quantify the aerosol generation during common otologic procedures in both cadaveric surgical simulation and live patient surgery. METHODS: The number concentrations of generated aerosols in the particle size range of 0.30 to 10.0 µm were quantified using an optical particle sizer during both a cadaveric simulation of routine otologic procedures as well as cochlear implant surgery on live patients in the operating room. RESULTS: In the cadaveric simulation, temporalis fascia graft harvest using cold techniques (without electrocautery) (n = 4) did not generate aerosols above baseline concentrations. Tympanoplasty (n = 3) and mastoidectomy (n = 3) both produced statistically significant increases in concentrations of aerosols (P < 0.05), predominantly submicron particles (< 1.0 µm). High-speed, powered drilling of the temporal bone during mastoidectomy with a Multi Flute cutting burr resulted in higher peak concentrations and greater number of spikes in aerosols than with a diamond burr. In the operating room, spikes in aerosols occurred during both cochlear implant surgeries. CONCLUSION: In the cadaveric simulation, temporalis fascia graft harvest without electrocautery did not generate aerosol levels above baseline, while significant aerosol levels were generated during mastoidectomy and to a much less degree during tympanoplasty. Aerosol spikes were appreciated during cochlear implantation surgery in live patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Anosmia and hyposmia have many etiologies, including trauma, chronic sinusitis, neoplasms, and respiratory viral infections such as rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to systematically review the literature on the diagnostic evaluation of anosmia/hyposmia. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published since January 1990 using terms combined with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). We included articles evaluating diagnostic modalities for anosmia, written in the English language, used original data, and had two or more patients. RESULTS: A total of 2065 unique titles were returned upon the initial search. Of these, 226 abstracts were examined, yielding 27 full-text articles meeting inclusion criteria (Level of evidence ranging from 1 to 4; most level 2). The studies included a total of 13,577 patients. The most utilized diagnostic tools were orthonasal smell tests (such as the Sniffin' Sticks and the UPSIT, along with validated abridged smell tests). Though various imaging modalities (including MRI and CT) were frequently mentioned in the workup of olfactory dysfunction, routine imaging was not used to primarily diagnose smell loss. CONCLUSION: The literature includes several studies on validity and reliability for various smell tests in diagnosing anosmia. Along with a thorough history and physical, validated orthonasal smell tests should be part of the workup of the patient with suspected olfactory dysfunction. The most widely studied modality was MRI, but criteria for the timing and sequence of imaging modalities was heterogenous.