Smell loss associated with SARS-CoV-2 is not clinically different from other viruses: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the prevalence of cases with olfactory loss, other respiratory viruses can also cause this condition. We aimed to compare the prevalence of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and other respiratory viruses in patients with sudden smell loss, and to assess the impact of SARS-CoV-2 viral load and co-infection on olfactory symptoms. METHODS: Patients with sudden smell loss were recruited in a multicenter prospective cohort study in 15 hospitals in Brazil. Clinical questionnaire, Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) olfactory test and nasopharyngeal swab to perform a PCR-based respiratory viral panel were collected at first visit (day 0) and 30 and 60 days after recruitment. RESULTS: 188 of 213 patients presented positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, among which 65 were co-infected with other respiratory viruses (e.g., rhinovirus, enterovirus, and parainfluenza). 25 had negative test results for SARS-CoV-2. Patients in both SARSCoV-2 and non-SARS-CoV-2 groups had objective anosmia (less than 2 points according to the psychophysical olfactory CCCRC) at day 0, with no significant difference between them. Both groups had significant smell scores improvement after 30 and 60 days, with no difference between them. Co-infection with other respiratory viruses, and SARS-CoV-2 viral load did not impact olfactory scores. CONCLUSION: Patients with sudden smell loss associated with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses had similar presentation, with most participants initiating with anosmia, and total or near total recovery after 60 days. SARS-CoV-2 viral load and co-infections with other respiratory viruses were not associated with poorer olfactory outcomes.

A systematic review to assess the anatomical correlates of the notches in acoustic rhinometry.

BACKGROUND: The graph obtained by Acoustic Rhinometry in most studies of normal adult Caucasian individuals clearly shows two notches at the beginning of the rhinogram. However, we found different opinions in the literature regarding the anatomical correlation of the anterior notches. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was to identify and to discuss papers providing objective evidence of anatomic correlation of two anterior notches. TYPE OF REVIEW: A systematic review of the literature using a defined search strategy. Papers were included based on pre-defined criteria, which included standardization of techniques. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic literature searches of MEDLINE and SCIELO (1989-2008). EVALUATION METHOD: Review of all randomized controlled trials by two authors and grading of articles for quality. A meta-analysis of data was attempted. RESULTS: 21 articles were identified. Five of which were prospective studies with randomized controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of Acoustic Rhinometry studies affirm that the first notch is the nasal valve and the second is the anterior end of the inferior turbinate. These findings were based on papers that had not studied the anatomical correlation of these notches. Other studies claim that the first notch is the nostril and the second is the nasal valve as a whole. The conclusion that can be drawn concerning anatomic correlation of the first two notches is that there are conflicting opinions about this correlation in the literature and that more studies are needed to provide more convincing data.

Role of the external nasal dilator in the management of nasal obstruction.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of an external nasal dilator in patients with nasal obstruction secondary to mucosal congestion (n = 33) or to septal deviation in the nasal valve area (n = 28). A group of subjects with healthy nasal cavities was tested also (n = 51). Acoustic rhinometric and rhinomanometric nasal measurements were performed with and without the dilator and before and after topical decongestion of the nasal mucosa. A visual analog scale was employed to evaluate the subjective sensation of nasal obstruction. Objective measurements showed that the external dilator increased the minimum cross-sectional area and decreased the nasal resistance significantly in all three groups (P < 0.01). The effect was more impressive in patients with septal deviation (P < 0.001). Subjective assessments reflected patency in all subjects except those in the mucosal swelling group (P = 0.06). From this study the authors conclude that the external nasal dilator offers an effective, nonsurgical therapeutic approach in the management of septal deviation that obstructs the nasal valve area. Although patients with nasal obstruction secondary to mucosal congestion showed objective improvement with the nasal dilator, these changes were not accompanied by a sensation of enhanced patency.

The role of acoustic rhinometry in nasal provocation testing.

Geometric changes of the nasal airway in response to allergen challenge were measured by acoustic rhinometry (AR) and the sensitivity of the method was compared with that of rhinomanometry. Ten asymptomatic patients who suffered from ragweed allergic rhinitis were challenged out of season. The use of a custom-made noninvasive nasal adapter was an important feature of the measurement technique. A dose-dependent decrease in nasal cross-sectional area was found at and posterior to the entrance to the nasal valve. Both rhinometric and rhinomanometric methods were equivalent in sensing the changes in nasal patency due to allergen exposure (p = 0.73). Acoustic rhinometry, however, was simpler, more quickly performed and more comfortable for the subjects than was rhinomanometry by body plethysmography. AR is an alternative objective method for measurement of nasal mucosal responses, as in allergen challenge.

Acoustic rhinometric assessment of the nasal valve.

The aims of this study are to assess nasal valve cross-sectional areas in healthy noses and in patients with nasal obstruction after rhinoplasty and to evaluate the effect of an external nasal dilator on both healthy and obstructive nasal valves. Subjects consisted of (i) volunteers with no nasal symptoms, nasal cavities unremarkable to rhinoscopy and normal nasal resistance and (ii) patients referred to our clinic complaining of postrhinoplasty nasal obstruction. All subjects were tested before and after topical decongestion of the nasal mucosa and with an external nasal dilator. In 79 untreated healthy nasal cavities the nasal valve area showed two constrictions: the proximal constriction averaged 0.78 cm2 cross-section and was situated 1.18 cm from the nostril, the distal constriction averaged 0.70 cm2 cross-section at 2.86 cm from the nostril. Mucosal decongestion increased cross-sectional area of the distal constriction significantly (p < 0.0001) but not the proximal. External dilation increased cross-sectional area of both constrictions significantly (p < 0.0001). In 26 post-rhinoplasty obstructed nasal cavities, only a single constriction was detected, averaging 0.34 cm2 cross-section at 2.55 cm from the nostril and 0.4 cm2 at 2.46 cm from the nostril, before and after mucosal decongestion respectively. External dilation increased the minimum cross-sectional area to 0.64 cm2 in these nasal cavities (p < 0.0001). We conclude that the nasal valve area in patients with postrhinoplasty nasal obstruction is significantly smaller than in healthy nasal cavities as shown by acoustic rhinometry. Acoustic rhinometry objectively determines the structural and mucovascular components of the nasal valve area and external dilation is an effective therapeutical approach in the management of nasal valve obstruction.

Diagnostic imaging of fungal sinusitis: eleven new cases and literature review.

Fungal sinusitis should always be considered in the differential diagnosis of chronic or recurring sinusitis resistant to adequate medical treatment. A high index of suspicion is necessary for the diagnosis, and the clinical examination is rarely conclusive. The definitive diagnosis depends on the pathologist in most cases. We reviewed retrospectively the imaging findings, specifically computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR), in a series of fungal sinusitis patients. Non-enhanced CT scan is more sensitive than conventional X-ray in detecting the classical focal areas of hyper-attenuation and calcification seen in soft-tissue masses of fungal sinusitis. MR findings of hypo-intense signals on T1-weighted sequences which progress to signal-void area on T2-weighted sequences, are characteristic features of fungal sinusitis; however, it is reserved for cases where intracranial invasion is suspected or CT findings are inconclusive.

The airflow resistance profile of healthy nasal cavities.

Distribution of resistance to respiratory airflow in the nasal cavities was determined by digitized pressure/flow measurements of consecutive 2-cm airway segments between nostril and nasopharynx. Healthy adult subjects seated in a head-out body plethysmograph breathed exclusively through a single nasal cavity while transnasal pressure and flow signals were transduced, digitized and processed by a programmed desk-top computer to provide resistance values. Mean total resistances of untreated and decongested single nasal cavities were 0.44 (n = 30; SD +/- 0.25) and 0.26 (n = 15; SD +/- 0.06) Pa/cm3/s, respectively. The proportion of total airway resistance of successive 2-cm segments from nostril to nasopharynx was 56%, 22%, 16%, and 6% in the untreated nose, and 88%, 5%, 2%, and 5% following decongestion. The findings from 45 nasal cavities are consistent with previous pressure/flow measurements from six nasal cavities and support recent acoustic reflection assessments of nasal cross-sectional areas of both untreated and decongested noses.

Acoustic rhinometry in the evaluation of nasal obstruction.

Acoustic rhinometry (AR) is a recently developed objective technique for assessment of geometry of the nasal cavity. The technique is based on the analysis of sound waves reflected from the nasal cavities. It measures cross-sectional areas and nasal volume (NV). To obtain dependable assessments of nasal resistance by rhinomanometry or cross-sectional area measurements by AR, it is essential that the structural relations of the compliant vestibular region remain undisturbed by the measuring apparatus. The use of nozzles in making these measurements carries a great risk of direct distortion of the nasal valve. We used a nasal adapter that does not invade the nasal cavity and a chin support that stabilizes the head. In 51 healthy nasal cavities, the average minimum cross-sectional area (MCA) was 0.62 cm2 at 2.35 cm from the nostril and 0.67 cm2 at 2 cm from the nostril, respectively, before and after topical decongestion of the nasal mucosa. The MCA and NV findings in this group were significantly higher than MCA and NV (P < 0.001) in people with structural or mucosal abnormalities before mucosal decongestion. After mucosal decongestion, the MCA and NV were significantly higher in healthy nasal cavities than in nasal cavities with structural abnormalities (P < 0.001) but were not higher than nasal cavities with mucosal abnormalities (MCA, P = 0.05; NV, P = 0.06). A nozzle was applied in 20 healthy nasal cavities after mucosal decongestion, and a significantly higher MCA was found compared to measurements made with the nasal adapter (P = 0.02). We conclude that the nasal adapter, which does not invade the nasal cavities, avoids the distortion of the nasal valve and gives more accurate results.

Acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry, and the sensation of nasal patency: a correlative study.

Acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry were used to evaluate the relationship between nasal cross-sectional areas, nasal resistances, and sensations of nasal patency. These parameters were measured before and after topical application of a nasal decongestant in 78 patients suffering from nasal obstruction. As subjects breathed voluntarily through both nasal cavities, no significant correlation was found between sensation of nasal patency and combined nasal minimum cross-sectional areas (r = .11) or of total airflow resistance (r = -.11) either before or after decongestion. However, when subjects were required to breathe through each nasal cavity separately, a significant correlation was found between ipsilateral sensation of nasal patency and both ipsilateral minimum cross-sectional area pre-decongestion (r = -.53, p < .0001) and post-decongestion (r = -.22, p < .01), and airflow resistance pre-decongestion (r = .42, p < .0001) and post-decongestion (r = .25, p < .01). A significant, negative, nonlinear relationship was also found between nasal minimum cross-sectional area and nasal resistance. Furthermore, acoustic rhinometry demonstrated that small intrusions into the lumen of the nose that might be missed by rhinoscopy produce an exponentially greater increase in nasal resistance measurements by rhinomanometry. The findings were most striking in the valve region. It is concluded that each of these objective and complementary measurement techniques provides a more reliable assessment of nasal patency than subjective evaluation by either patient or clinician and can thus provide valuable guidance in management of the symptom of nasal obstruction.

CT imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of sinus disease: a partnership between the radiologist and the otolaryngologist.

We consider that the nasal cavity and the paranasal sinuses cannot be declared completely normal without a normal CT scan. While CT scans are clearly useful in the evaluation of patients with recurrent sinusitis, it is important to emphasize that they should not be employed exclusively for diagnosis. Nasal endoscopy and clinical evaluation still form the basis for the diagnosis of chronic and recurring sinusitis. The CT technique described should be used only to supplement the clinical data obtained during history-taking and the rhinoscopic/endoscopic examination and is essential before functional endoscopic sinus surgery. The complexity of the diagnostic process is simplified to patient benefit when the radiologist and the otolaryngologist form a functional interactive partnership.