{"title":"Olfactory outcomes in skull base surgery.","authors":"Sanjena Venkatesh, Jennifer E Douglas","doi":"10.1097/MOO.0000000000001023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This review examines the impact of skull base surgery on olfactory function, a critical yet often overlooked aspect of postoperative quality of life. As surgical techniques continue to evolve, understanding their impact on olfaction is key to optimizing patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The relationship between skull base surgery and olfactory function continues to be debated in the literature. With the adoption of transnasal surgical approaches, a significant concern has been its impact on olfaction. Prior studies have shown evidence of olfactory dysfunction following transnasal skull base surgery, though these findings are not universal. A particular area of discussion involves the use of the pedicled nasoseptal flap, which has demonstrated potentially negative short-term olfactory impacts. Additional concerns surround flap design (olfactory strip preservation) and technique of flap harvest (cold knife versus electrocautery). Evidence suggests that olfactory strip preservation may effectively maintain postoperative olfactory performance, while cold knife techniques offer no clear advantage over electrocautery.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The inconsistencies in the literature underscore the need for standardized, large-scale studies that directly compare surgical techniques to better understand the impact of transnasal skull base surgery on olfaction. This is essential to optimizing surgical outcomes and improving patient quality of life postoperatively.</p>","PeriodicalId":55195,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000001023","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
Purpose of review: This review examines the impact of skull base surgery on olfactory function, a critical yet often overlooked aspect of postoperative quality of life. As surgical techniques continue to evolve, understanding their impact on olfaction is key to optimizing patient outcomes.
Recent findings: The relationship between skull base surgery and olfactory function continues to be debated in the literature. With the adoption of transnasal surgical approaches, a significant concern has been its impact on olfaction. Prior studies have shown evidence of olfactory dysfunction following transnasal skull base surgery, though these findings are not universal. A particular area of discussion involves the use of the pedicled nasoseptal flap, which has demonstrated potentially negative short-term olfactory impacts. Additional concerns surround flap design (olfactory strip preservation) and technique of flap harvest (cold knife versus electrocautery). Evidence suggests that olfactory strip preservation may effectively maintain postoperative olfactory performance, while cold knife techniques offer no clear advantage over electrocautery.
Summary: The inconsistencies in the literature underscore the need for standardized, large-scale studies that directly compare surgical techniques to better understand the impact of transnasal skull base surgery on olfaction. This is essential to optimizing surgical outcomes and improving patient quality of life postoperatively.
期刊介绍:
Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery is a bimonthly publication offering a unique and wide ranging perspective on the key developments in the field. Each issue features hand-picked review articles from our team of expert editors. With eleven disciplines published across the year – including maxillofacial surgery, head and neck oncology and speech therapy and rehabilitation – every issue also contains annotated references detailing the merits of the most important papers.