Sonnet Marie-Hortense, Nguyen Duc Trung, Nguyen-Thi Phi-Linh, Arous Fabien, Jankowski Roger, Rumeau Cécile
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital of Nancy, Nancy, France.
Service d'Otorhinolaryngologie et Chirurgie, Cervico-Faciale, Hôpitaux de Brabois, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Nancy, rue du, Morvan, 54511, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy Cedex, France.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Jul;274(7):2837-2843. doi: 10.1007/s00405-017-4580-1. Epub 2017 Apr 26.
Given the forced-choice procedure of the identification test, patients with profound anosmia are more likely to have higher identification scores by chance than patients with hyposmia or normosmia. This may be a confusing factor when assessing the sense of smell, which alters the appreciation of real olfaction improvement. The aim of this study was to fine-tune the results of the identification Sniffin' Sticks test before and 6 weeks after surgery using the real identification score. A total of 133 patients underwent the Identification (I) and Threshold (T) tests the day before and 6 weeks after nasalization surgery. The scores of the identification test, called I (global identification), were ranked from 0 to 16. Patients had to specify if their forced-choice answers were given either surely or randomly, called I (hazard identification). The real score of identification I was obtained as follow: I = I - I . Patients with an immeasurable threshold according to the T test were more prone to give randomly correct answers. On the basis of I scores, 43.6% of patients remained hypo-anosmic after surgery compared to 72.9% before surgery. Using I scores, only 3.8% of patients remained anosmic (I = 0) at 6 weeks after surgery. Hence, patients with real anosmia (I = 0) were less prone to improve their olfaction than patients with I > 0. The analysis of random factor when using identification test allows differentiating a real anosmia from a hyposmia. An I ≤ 4 could be considered as a profound/real anosmia or a severe hyposmia. This procedure cannot, however, replace the forced-choice method in odor identification testing.
鉴于识别测试采用的强制选择程序,与嗅觉减退或嗅觉正常的患者相比,重度嗅觉丧失的患者更有可能偶然获得更高的识别分数。在评估嗅觉时,这可能是一个令人困惑的因素,它会改变对嗅觉实际改善情况的判断。本研究的目的是使用实际识别分数对手术前和术后6周的嗅觉棒识别测试结果进行微调。共有133例患者在鼻腔手术前一天和术后6周接受了识别(I)和阈值(T)测试。识别测试的分数,即I(整体识别),范围为0至16分。患者必须指明他们的强制选择答案是确定给出的还是随机给出的,即I(随机识别)。识别I的实际分数按以下方式获得:I = I - I。根据T测试阈值无法测量的患者更倾向于随机给出正确答案。根据I分数,43.6%的患者术后仍为嗅觉减退,而术前这一比例为72.9%。使用I分数时,术后6周只有3.8%的患者仍为嗅觉丧失(I = 0)。因此,真正嗅觉丧失(I = 0)的患者比I > 0的患者嗅觉改善的可能性更小。在使用识别测试时对随机因素进行分析有助于区分真正的嗅觉丧失和嗅觉减退。I ≤ 4可被视为重度/真正的嗅觉丧失或严重的嗅觉减退。然而,该程序不能替代气味识别测试中的强制选择方法。