Yun-Ting Chao MD, PhD, Freya Aden, Önder Göktas MD, Friedemann Schmidt MD, Gökhan Göktas MD, Miroslav Jurkov MD, Wolfgang Georgsdorf, Thomas Hummel MD
{"title":"Can immersive olfactory training serve as an alternative treatment for patients with smell dysfunction?","authors":"Yun-Ting Chao MD, PhD, Freya Aden, Önder Göktas MD, Friedemann Schmidt MD, Gökhan Göktas MD, Miroslav Jurkov MD, Wolfgang Georgsdorf, Thomas Hummel MD","doi":"10.1002/lio2.1270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Olfactory training (OT) has emerged as a first-line therapeutic approach to the management of olfactory dysfunction. Conventional OT (COT) involves the systematic home-based exposure to four distinct odors. Previous research has demonstrated that immersive OT (IOT) involving full-body exposure to dozens of distinct odors could also improve overall olfactory function. This study compared IOT and COT in terms of efficacy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 60 patients were enrolled and assigned to three groups. The IOT group (<i>n</i> = 25) underwent immersive exposure to 64 odors once daily in a specialized theater. COT participants (<i>n</i> = 17) sniffed four typical odors in a set of four jars twice daily at home. A control group (<i>n</i> = 18) underwent passive observation. Olfactory function was assessed before and after training.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Significant improvements in composite threshold-discrimination-identification (TDI) scores were observed after training in both the IOT (mean difference = 2.5 ± 1.1. <i>p</i> = .030) and COT (mean difference = 4.2 ± 1.3, <i>p</i> = .002) groups. No changes were observed in the control group. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the COT group (41%) presented improvements of clinical importance (TDI ≥5.5) compared to the controls (<i>p</i> = .018). The improvements attained in the IOT group (20%) were less pronounced (<i>p</i> = .38).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>While IOT did not exhibit the same efficacy as COT in restoring olfactory function, it still demonstrated promising outcomes. Future efforts to advance olfactory recovery should focus on cross-modal integration.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\n \n <p>Level 3.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48529,"journal":{"name":"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology","volume":"9 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11166096/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lio2.1270","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
Olfactory training (OT) has emerged as a first-line therapeutic approach to the management of olfactory dysfunction. Conventional OT (COT) involves the systematic home-based exposure to four distinct odors. Previous research has demonstrated that immersive OT (IOT) involving full-body exposure to dozens of distinct odors could also improve overall olfactory function. This study compared IOT and COT in terms of efficacy.
Methods
A total of 60 patients were enrolled and assigned to three groups. The IOT group (n = 25) underwent immersive exposure to 64 odors once daily in a specialized theater. COT participants (n = 17) sniffed four typical odors in a set of four jars twice daily at home. A control group (n = 18) underwent passive observation. Olfactory function was assessed before and after training.
Results
Significant improvements in composite threshold-discrimination-identification (TDI) scores were observed after training in both the IOT (mean difference = 2.5 ± 1.1. p = .030) and COT (mean difference = 4.2 ± 1.3, p = .002) groups. No changes were observed in the control group. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the COT group (41%) presented improvements of clinical importance (TDI ≥5.5) compared to the controls (p = .018). The improvements attained in the IOT group (20%) were less pronounced (p = .38).
Conclusion
While IOT did not exhibit the same efficacy as COT in restoring olfactory function, it still demonstrated promising outcomes. Future efforts to advance olfactory recovery should focus on cross-modal integration.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
