Background Acute loss of smell and taste are well‐recognized symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), yet the correlation between self‐reported and psychophysical olfactory function remains unclear. Understanding the reliability of self‐reported smell loss in ambulatory cases can assess the utility of this screening measure. Methods A prospective, longitudinal study evaluating patient‐reported and measured olfactory function using the validated 12‐item Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT) was conducted on adult outpatients with COVID‐19. Patient‐reported olfaction scores using a visual analog scale (VAS) were obtained at baseline, time of COVID‐19 testing, and time of BSIT completion. Linear associations between VAS and BSIT were evaluated using Spearman's correlation coefficient and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of VAS scores were calculated. Logistic regression identified characteristics associated with accurate assessment of olfactory function. Results A total of 81 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐confirmed COVID‐19 positive subjects, of whom 54 self‐reported smell loss, were prospectively recruited ≤5 days from diagnosis date between May 8, 2020, and July 8, 2020. Self‐reported smell loss had good discriminative ability in identifying abnormal BSIT (area under receiver operating curve [AUC] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.92). A VAS <5 demonstrated sensitivity of 0.62 and specificity of 0.94 for predicting hyposmia (BSIT ≤8) with accuracy of 82.7%, whereas a VAS <9 had highest sensitivity at 0.86. Moderate bivariate linear associations were found between VAS and BSIT scores (rs = 0.59, p < 0.001). Conclusion Self‐reported olfactory loss associated with COVID‐19 has a strong ability to predict abnormal olfactory function though the 2 measures are moderately correlated. Subjective olfactory assessment is useful in screening olfactory dysfunction at early disease time points when psychophysical testing cannot be conducted.

Imaging of the triangular fibrocartilaginous complex (TFCC) remains difficult, as no single imaging modality demonstrates perfect sensitivity and specificity. This study performs a meta-analysis of multiple previous publications to guide noninvasive imaging selection for the diagnosis of TFCC injuries. A literature search was performed and conducted. Studies were included that compared the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA), and computed tomography (CT)/computed tomographic arthrography (CTA) for the evaluation of TFCC injuries. All studies included either arthroscopic or open surgical findings as the "gold standard." A meta-analysis was performed comparing the diagnostic accuracy of MRA, MRI, and CT for the detection of TFCC injuries. Initial search returned 2,568 candidate articles. Studies were then reviewed and narrowed yielding a total of 28 independent studies (20 MRI, 9 MRA, 4 CT/CTA with some studies including multiple modalities) considered in the qualitative data synthesis. Pooling of the raw data in a meta-analysis demonstrated sensitivities of 0.76 (0.72-0.80), 0.78(0.70-0.84), and 0.89 (0.81-0.95) for MRI, MRA, and CT arthrogram, respectively, with specificities of 0.82 (0.77-0.86), 0.85 (0.77-0.92), and 0.89 (0.81-0.95), respectively. Additionally, across all imaging modalities, diagnostic accuracy was highest for central TFCC lesions versus peripheral lesions. This study represents the largest meta-analysis to date to compare multiple imaging modalities for the diagnosis of TFCC injuries. Pooled data demonstrated that CTA and MRA had statistically equivalent sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of TFCC injuries. Diagnostic accuracy was highest for central TFCC injuries.

Although not completely preventable, venous thromboembolism risks can be reduced with careful preoperative planning and medical history and the judicious use of chemoprophylaxis. Because there does not appear to be an increase in the rate of postoperative bleeding when prophylaxis is administered appropriately, the use of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis should be considered in all microsurgery patients except those at extremely high risk of bleeding.