Olfactory outcomes after transsphenoidal endonasal surgery

Sinonasal Symptoms and Self-Reported Health before and after Endoscopic Pituitary Surgery—A Prospective Study

Objectives Despite the limited invasiveness of endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery (ETSS), some degree of nasal structure destruction is unavoidable. Our objective was to evaluate sinonasal morbidity and self-reported health before and 6 months after ETSS for pituitary tumors, and to identify possible predictive factors for deterioration in sinonasal health.

Design Prospective observational cohort study.

Setting University tertiary referral hospital.

Participants Totally 109 consecutive adult patients undergoing ETSS for pituitary tumors between 2015 and 2019.

Main Outcome Measures Sinonasal symptoms and self-reported health before and 6 months after ETSS, assessed by the Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and the EQ-5D questionnaire. Predictive factors for postoperative deterioration in sinonasal symptoms.

Results The overall SNOT-22 score did not change, but the score of the rhinologic domain of SNOT-22 worsened from 6.0 ± 5.9 before to 8.0 ± 7.4 6 months after surgery (p = 0.011). The EQ-5D visual analog scale improved from 64.0 ± 22.9 before to 71.1 ± 18.7 6 months after surgery (p = 0.00088). Univariate and multivariable regression analyses showed that prior sinonasal surgery was associated with a significant worsening in rhinologic symptoms 6 months after surgery (p = 0.046 and p = 0.020, respectively).

Conclusions Although self-reported overall health improved, significant deterioration of rhinologic symptoms was seen 6 months after ETSS. This information is important for preoperative patient counselling. Further refinement of the surgical technique and follow-up strategies to reduce postoperative sinonasal morbidity could be of value, especially in patients who have undergone prior sinonasal surgery.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Olfaction

BACKGROUND

The literature regarding clinical olfaction, olfactory loss, and olfactory dysfunction has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, with an exponential rise in the past year. There is substantial variability in the quality of this literature and a need to consolidate and critically review the evidence. It is with that aim that we have gathered experts from around the world to produce this International Consensus on Allergy and Rhinology: Olfaction (ICAR:O).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to olfaction. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review, or evidence-based review with recommendations format as dictated by available evidence and scope within the ICAR:O document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:O document was integrated and reviewed by all authors for final consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:O document reviews nearly 100 separate topics within the realm of olfaction, including diagnosis, epidemiology, disease burden, diagnosis, testing, etiology, treatment, and associated pathologies.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the existing clinical olfaction literature provides much needed insight and clarity into the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with olfactory dysfunction, while also clearly delineating gaps in our knowledge and evidence base that we should investigate further.