沉浸式嗅觉训练可以作为嗅觉功能障碍患者的替代治疗方法吗？

IF 1.6 4区医学 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY

Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology Pub Date : 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1002/lio2.1270

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":"沉浸式嗅觉训练可以作为嗅觉功能障碍患者的替代治疗方法吗？","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的：嗅觉训练（OT）已成为治疗嗅觉功能障碍的一线治疗方法。传统的嗅觉训练（COT）包括在家中系统地接触四种不同的气味。之前的研究表明，全身暴露于数十种不同气味的沉浸式嗅觉训练（IOT）也能改善整体嗅觉功能。本研究比较了 IOT 和 COT 的疗效：共招募了 60 名患者，并将其分为三组。IOT 组（n = 25）每天一次在专门的剧场中身临其境地接触 64 种气味。COT组参与者（n = 17）每天两次在家中嗅闻一套四个罐子中的四种典型气味。对照组（n = 18）接受被动观察。对训练前后的嗅觉功能进行评估：结果：训练后，IOT 组（平均差异 = 2.5 ± 1.1，p = .030）和 COT 组（平均差异 = 4.2 ± 1.3，p = .002）的阈值-辨别-识别（TDI）综合评分均有显著提高。对照组未观察到任何变化。与对照组相比，COT 组（41%）患者的临床症状明显改善（TDI ≥5.5）（p = .018）。IOT组（20%）的改善不那么明显（p = .38）：结论：虽然 IOT 在恢复嗅觉功能方面的疗效不如 COT，但仍显示出良好的效果。未来促进嗅觉恢复的工作应侧重于跨模态整合：证据等级：3 级。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

Can immersive olfactory training serve as an alternative treatment for patients with smell dysfunction?

查看原文本刊更多论文

Can immersive olfactory training serve as an alternative treatment for patients with smell dysfunction?

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.