Background: Olfactory dysfunction (OD) in COVID-19 presents as a sudden onset smell loss commonly seen in mild symptomatic cases with or without rhinitis but can occur as an isolated symptom. The reported prevalence of OD among COVID-19 patients ranged from 5% to 98%. Although numerous studies have been conducted about their association, these were mainly based on self-reported cases and subjective questionnaires. Objective: This study investigates whether there is a significant difference in the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction between self-reported and objective testing using validated objective olfactory tests among RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients. Methods: PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for studies investigating the prevalence of OD by using objective olfactory tests among patients who self-reported OD (November 1, 2019 to July 31, 2020). All studies were assessed for quality and bias using the Cochrane bias tool. Patient demographics, type of objective olfactory test, and results of self-reported OD and objective testing were reported. Results: Nine studies encompassing 673 patients met the inclusion criteria. Validated objective olfactory tests used in the included studies were CCCRC, SST and SIT. Overall prevalence of OD among patients who self-reported was higher after objective testing (71% versus 81%). This was also seen in when we performed subgroup analysis based on the objective tests that were used. However, meta-analysis using random effects model showed no significant difference in the overall prevalence of OD (p value=.479, 95% CI 56.6 to 84.0 versus 71.2 to 89.8) as well as in the subgroups. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis that statistically reviewed articles that evaluated the difference between self-reported and objective tests done on the same patients. Results showing that self-reporting OD approximates the results of the objective tests among COVID-19 positive patients may imply that self-reporting can be sufficient in contact tracing and triggering swabbing and self quarantine during the time of COVID-19 and objective tests can be used as an adjunct in the diagnosis particularly in research. However, this study was limited by small sample size and articles done in European countries hence, interpretation and application of the results of this study must be approached with care. Further studies documenting the difference between self-reporting and objective test in large scale setting involving different countries may be helpful in establishing a definitive consensus.
Background: Nasal mucociliary clearance is mainly measured using the saccharin test because it is inexpensive, readily available, and non-toxic. However, in the local setting, the authors had difficulty procuring saccharin, and this prompted the authors to look for an alternative. Upon an expansive review of the literature, the authors came to know about the use of charcoal that has the same properties as saccharin plus it is inert and easily traceable. The objectives of this study were to (1) establish the normal nasal mucociliary clearance time (MCT) using the saccharin test (ST) and charcoal test (CT) among Filipinos, (2) determine if CT can be used to determine nasal mucociliary clearance and (3) determine if the age, sex, land of dwelling, and comorbidities can prolong MCT.Methods: This is a cross-sectional study involving 50 subjects. ST and CT were performed by placing a particle of sodium saccharine and 10μg of charcoal on the medial surface and at least 1 cm behind the head of the inferior turbinate. All STs were done on the right nostril while CTs were done on the left. A 0-to 20minute MCT was considered normal while MCT of more than 30 minutes was considered prolonged clearance. Lastly, a transit time of more than 60 minutes was considered a failed mucociliary clearance test.Results: The mean mucociliary transit time for the saccharin group was 14.48 minutes while for the charcoal group was 14.78 minutes (p=0.531). When grouped into subcategories, CT results showed a higher mucociliary clearance mean time among males, provincial residents, and those without comorbidities while ST had a higher mean mucociliary clearance time among females, Metro Manila residents, and those with comorbidities. All were noted to be not statistically significant.Conclusion: This study showed that CT is comparable with ST. Also, it can be used as an alternative to ST because the tester directly observes the charcoal transit in the oropharynx while ST relies on the patient's perception of taste that could result in false results.
Keywords: ophthalmic artery; vasospasm; iatrogenic; endoscopic sinus surgery; blindness Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is a generally benign, minimally invasive procedure used for management of paranasal sinus diseases, although complications may occur due to proximity of vital structures such as the brain, orbit and great vessels.1 The overall ESS major complication rate is 0.5-1%, of which orbital injury accounts for 0.09% due to direct trauma.2 We report a case of unilateral delayed sudden visual loss without orbital trauma observed intraoperatively or on post[1]operative imaging studies, following a seemingly routine endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis. CASE REPORT An 18-year-old lad with no significant medical history underwent ESS for bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. (Figure 1 A-D) The surgery and recovery from anesthesia were uneventful. On the 12th hour post-operatively, the patient noted blurring of vision on the left. Ophthalmologic examination revealed hyperemic conjunctiva (Figure 2A) with visual acuity of counting fingers at 1 foot while fundoscopy showed retinal hemorrhages. Extraocular eye movements (EOM) and intraocular pressure (IOP) were normal (12mmHg). With an assessment of pre-retinal hemorrhages, 500 mg Tranexamic acid was intravenously infused, and a paranasal sinus (PNS) computed tomography (CT) scan and orbital magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were requested. A few hours later, he complained of left eye pain with increasing intensity and further deterioration of vision. Repeat visual acuity testing showed light perception. There was now a constricted pupil, non-reactive pupillary light reflex, periorbital swelling and progression of conjunctival chemosis. (Figure 2B) The IOP of the left eye had increased to 30mmHg then progressed to 40mmHg with development of total visual loss and a lateral gaze limitation. With an impression of choroidal hemorrhage and retrobulbar hemorrhage, a lateral canthotomy relieved the eye pain. The contrast PNS CT scan with orbital cuts showed that the lamina papyracea was intact with no definite hemorrhagic collections in the intraconal or extraconal spaces of both orbits. (Figure 3A, B) A small hyper density along the lateral inferior margin of the left globe at the intraconal region with slight thickening of the anterior periorbital region represented the lateral canthotomy. The PNS MRI / magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) with orbital cuts showed retinal detachment and periorbital edema in the left eye. (Figure 4) A B-Scan ocular ultrasonogram showed retinal detachment and vitreous opacities. The diagnosis was ocular ischemic syndrome secondary to ophthalmic artery vasospasm, and the patient was given sublingual nitroglycerine and intravenous dexamethasone 8mg every 12 hours for 24 hours, with improvement of periorbital swelling. He was discharged after 12 days with no resolution of the unilateral visual loss.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.