Suppr超能文献

传导性嗅觉丧失的诊断。

The diagnosis of a conductive olfactory loss.

作者信息

Seiden A M, Duncan H J

机构信息

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Ohio 45267-0528, USA.

出版信息

Laryngoscope. 2001 Jan;111(1):9-14. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200101000-00002.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Two of the most common causes of olfactory loss include upper respiratory infection (URI) and nasal or sinus disease. The etiology of most URI-related losses is thought to be viral and, as yet, there is no available treatment. In contrast, nasal or sinus disease produces an obstructive or conductive loss that often responds dramatically to appropriate therapy. Therefore, the distinction is important but in many cases may be difficult because such patients often present with no other nasal symptoms, and routine physical findings may be nonspecific. The purpose of this report is to characterize those aspects of the history and physical examination that will help to substantiate the diagnosis of a conductive olfactory loss.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective, nonrandomized study of consecutive patients presenting with a primary complaint of olfactory loss.

METHODS

This study reviewed 428 patients seen at a university-based taste and smell clinic from July 1987 through December 1998. Of this total, 60 patients were determined to have a conductive olfactory loss. All patients were referred specifically because of a primary chemosensory complaint. The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT; Sensonics, Inc., Haddon Heights, NJ) was administered in all cases.

RESULTS

The most commonly diagnosed etiologies of olfactory loss were head injury (18%), upper respiratory infection (18%), and nasal or sinus disease (14%). Of the 60 patients with a conductive loss, only 30% complained of nasal obstruction, whereas 58% described a history of chronic sinusitis. Only 45% reported that their olfactory loss at times seemed to fluctuate in severity. Anterior rhinoscopy failed to diagnose pathology in 51% of cases, whereas nasal endoscopy missed the diagnosis in 9%. Systemic steroids elicited a temporary reversal of conductive olfactory loss in 83% of patients who received them, offering a useful diagnostic maneuver, whereas topical steroids did so in only 25%.

CONCLUSIONS

The etiology for olfactory loss can in many cases be difficult to determine, but it is important to establish prognosis and to predict response to therapy. Diagnosis requires a thorough history, appropriate chemosensory testing, and a physical examination that should include nasal endoscopy. A trial of systemic steroids may serve to verify that the loss is indeed conductive.

摘要

目的/假设:嗅觉减退最常见的两个原因包括上呼吸道感染(URI)和鼻腔或鼻窦疾病。多数与URI相关的嗅觉减退病因被认为是病毒性的,且目前尚无有效治疗方法。相比之下,鼻腔或鼻窦疾病会导致阻塞性或传导性嗅觉减退,通常对适当治疗反应显著。因此,明确这种区别很重要,但在很多情况下可能有困难,因为这类患者常常没有其他鼻部症状,而且常规体格检查结果可能不具特异性。本报告的目的是描述病史和体格检查的哪些方面有助于证实传导性嗅觉减退的诊断。

研究设计

对以嗅觉减退为主诉的连续患者进行的回顾性、非随机研究。

方法

本研究回顾了1987年7月至1998年12月在一家大学味觉与嗅觉诊所就诊的428例患者。其中,60例患者被确定为传导性嗅觉减退。所有患者均因主要的化学感觉主诉而被专门转诊。所有病例均进行了宾夕法尼亚大学嗅觉识别测试(UPSIT;Sensonics公司,新泽西州哈登赫斯特)。

结果

嗅觉减退最常被诊断出的病因是头部损伤(18%)、上呼吸道感染(18%)和鼻腔或鼻窦疾病(14%)。在60例传导性嗅觉减退患者中,只有30%主诉有鼻塞,而58%有慢性鼻窦炎病史。只有45%的患者报告其嗅觉减退的严重程度有时似乎会波动。前鼻镜检查在51%的病例中未能诊断出病变,而鼻内镜检查漏诊率为9%。全身用类固醇使83%接受治疗的患者传导性嗅觉减退暂时逆转,这是一种有用的诊断手段,而局部用类固醇仅有25%的患者出现这种情况。

结论

在很多情况下,嗅觉减退的病因可能难以确定,但确定预后和预测治疗反应很重要。诊断需要详尽的病史、适当的化学感觉测试以及包括鼻内镜检查在内的体格检查。试用全身用类固醇可能有助于证实嗅觉减退确实是传导性的。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验