Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A study on the prognostic significance of qualitative olfactory dysfunction

  • Rhinology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigated the frequency and prognostic significance of qualitative olfactory dysfunction (parosmia, phantosmia) in a retrospective patient based study. A total of 392 patients with impairment of olfaction were tested at least two times for their olfactory function using the “Sniffin’ Sticks”. The mean interval between the first and the last test was 11 months. At the first visit 34% of all patients reported parosmia. Parosmia was most frequent in patients with postinfectious olfactory loss (56%), and less frequent in idiopathic, posttraumatic, sinunasal disease with frequencies of 10, 14, and 28%, respectively. In contrast, only 12% of all patients had phantosmias, with no significant differences between the patient groups. Improvement of olfactory function was found in 23% of all patients (n = 90). Pre-existing parosmia or phantosmia had no significant effect on recovery rate. Regarding qualitative olfactory dysfunction, 29% of those patients reporting parosmia reported relief of this symptom after an average of 12 months, whereas 53% of phantosmic patients lost phantosmia during the observation period. Although it has been suggested that olfactory distortion s could be regarded as an indicator of early recovery of decreased olfactory sensitivity, the current data indicate that occurrence of parosmia or phantosmia has little prognostic value. Phantosmia disappears at a faster rate than parosmia. These insights into qualitative olfactory dysfunction are regarded to be significant in the counseling of patients with olfactory loss.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Landis BN, Konnerth CG, Hummel T (2004) A study on the frequency of olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope 114:1764–1769

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bramerson A, Johansson L, Ek L, Nordin S, Bende M (2004) Prevalence of olfactory dysfunction: the skovde population-based study. Laryngoscope 114:733–737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Murphy C, Schubert CR, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Nondahl DM (2002) Prevalence of olfactory impairment in older adults. JAMA 288:2307–2312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Damm M, Temmel A, Welge-Lussen A et al (2004) Olfactory dysfunctions. Epidemiology and therapy in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Hno 52:112–120

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Leopold D (2002) Distortion of olfactory perception: diagnosis and treatment. Chem Senses 27:611–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frasnelli J, Hummel T (2005) Olfactory dysfunction and daily life. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 262:231–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Deems DA, Doty RL, Settle RG et al (1991) Smell and taste disorders, a study of 750 patients from the University of Pennsylvania Smell and Taste Center. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:519–528

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nordin S, Murphy C, Davidson TM, Quinonez C, Jalowayski AA, Ellison DW (1996) Prevalence and assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction in different age groups. Laryngoscope 106:739–744

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Quint C, Temmel AF, Schickinger B, Pabinger S, Ramberger P, Hummel T (2001) Patterns of non-conductive olfactory disorders in eastern Austria: a study of 120 patients from the Department of Otorhinolaryngology at the University of Vienna. Wien Klin Wochenschr 113:52–57

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Doty RL (1979) A review of olfactory dysfunctions in man. Am J Otolaryngol 1:57–79

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Reden J, Mueller A, Mueller C et al (2006) Recovery of olfactory function following closed head injury or infections of the upper respiratory tract. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132:265–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf SR, Pauli E, Kobal G (1997) “Sniffin’ sticks”: olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem Senses 22:39–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kobal G, Klimek L, Wolfensberger M et al (2000) Multicenter investigation of 1,036 subjects using a standardized method for the assessment of olfactory function combining tests of odor identification, odor discrimination, and olfactory thresholds. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 257:205–211

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gudziol VLJ, Reden J, Frasnelli J, Müller A, Zahnert T, Hummel T (2005) Subjective changes of olfactory function: correlation with measured olfactory function. In: Presentation held at the 2005 meeting of the Working Group on Olfaction and Gustation of the German ENT Association 2005

  15. Axel R (1995) The molecular logic of smell. Sci Am 273(4):130–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mueller A, Rodewald A, Reden J, Gerber J, von Kummer R, Hummel T (2005) Reduced olfactory bulb volume in post-traumatic and post-infectious olfactory dysfunction. Neuroreport 16:475–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Holbrook EH, Leopold DA, Schwob JE (2005) Abnormalities of axon growth in human olfactory mucosa. Laryngoscope 115:2144–2154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Seiden AM (2004) Postviral olfactory loss. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 37:1159–1166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Perlman S, Evans G, Afifi A (1990) Effect of olfactory bulb ablation on spread of a neurotropic coronavirus into the mouse brain. J Exp Med 172:1127–1132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jafek BW, Hartman D, Eller PM, Johnson EW, Strahan RC, Moran DT (1990) Postviral olfactory dysfunction. Am J Rhinol 4:91–100

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jacob TJ, Fraser C, Wang L, Walker V, O’Connor S (2003) Psychophysical evaluation of responses to pleasant and mal-odour stimulation in human subjects; adaptation, dose response and gender differences. Int J Psychophysiol 48:67–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Smell and Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Dresden Medical School (“Technische Universität Dresden”), Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany

    J. Reden, H. Maroldt, A. Fritz, T. Zahnert & T. Hummel

Authors
  1. J. Reden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Maroldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Fritz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Zahnert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. T. Hummel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Hummel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reden, J., Maroldt, H., Fritz, A. et al. A study on the prognostic significance of qualitative olfactory dysfunction. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264, 139–144 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-006-0157-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-006-0157-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation