Self-reported smell and taste recovery in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: a one-year prospective study.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to estimate the 1 year prevalence and recovery rate of self-reported chemosensory dysfunction in a series of subjects with previous mild-to-moderate symptomatic COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective study based on the SNOT-22, item "sense of smell or taste" and additional outcomes. RESULTS: 268/315 patients (85.1%) completing the survey at baseline also completed the follow-up interview. The 12 months prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 associated chemosensory dysfunction was 21.3% (95% CI 16.5-26.7%). Of the 187 patients who complained of COVID-19 associated chemosensory dysfunction at baseline, 130 (69.5%; 95% CI 62.4-76.0%) reported complete resolution of smell or taste impairment, 41 (21.9%) reported a decrease in the severity, and 16 (8.6%) reported the symptom was unchanged or worse 1 year after onset. The risk of persistence was higher for patients reporting a baseline SNOT-22 score ≥ 4 (OR = 3.32; 95% CI 1.32-8.36) as well as for those requiring ≥ 22 days for a negative swab (OR = 2.18; 95% CI 1.12-4.27). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients with previous mild-to-moderate symptomatic COVID-19 characterized by new onset of chemosensory dysfunction still complained on altered sense of smell or taste 1 year after the onset.

Surgical resection of oral cancer: en-bloc versus discontinuous approach.

OBJECTIVES: In the past literature agreed on treating oral carcinomas, using an "en-bloc" resection (EBR) but recently minimally invasive transoral surgery has spread as the preferable treatment for selected cases. This latter technique, which is performed with a discontinuous resection (DR), allows for a satisfactory postoperative quality of life (QoL) maintaining good survival rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we analyzed data about 147 surgically treated patients with oral cancer involving tongue and floor of the mouth. The sample was divided according to the surgical approach: EBR and DR group which were compared in terms of recurrence, overall survival, disease-free survival, and QoL. RESULTS: In the DR group, survival analysis showed better results in term of survival, locoregional control, and postoperative anxiety, while the other QoL scores were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: The more invasive approach does not correlate to a better outcome. In selected cases, DR is an oncologically safe technique; EBR is still a valid option to treat advanced oral cancers.