CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2023; 27(04): e699-e705
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1761168
Original Article

Long-term Recovery Patterns of Olfactory Function after Trans-sphenoidal Approach with Nasoseptal Flap Elevation

1   Department of Otolaryngology, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Dongsan Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea
,
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Dongsan Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea
› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Introduction Nasoseptal flap is widely used in reconstruction of the skull base to prevent cerebrospinal fluid leakage after surgery for skull base lesions. There has been a debate on whether more severe olfactory dysfunction occurs after nasoseptal flap elevation than the conventional trans-sphenoidal approach.

Objective To compare the long-term recovery patterns associated with nasoseptal flap and the conventional trans-sphenoidal approach.

Methods The subjects were divided into the conventional trans-sphenoidal approach group and the nasoseptal flap elevation group. We followed up self-reported olfactory score using the visual analogue scale and threshold discrimination identification (TDI) score of the Korean Version of the Sniffin Stick test II for 12 months, with olfactory training.

Results The study included 31 patients who underwent the trans-sphenoidal approach. Compared with preoperative status, the mean visual analogue scale and TDI scores in the conventional trans-sphenoidal approach group recovered 2 months postoperatively, while in the nasoseptal flap elevation group the visual analogue scale and TDI scores recovered 6 months and 3 months after surgery, respectively. Twelve months after surgery, the visual analogue scale and TDI scores in the conventional trans-sphenoidal approach group were 9.3 ± 0.5 and 28.5 ± 4.3, while those from the nasoseptal flap elevation group were 8.9 ± 1.5 and 27.2 ± 4.7 (p = 0.326; 0.473). Only one of the patients in the nasoseptal flap elevation group had permanent olfactory dysfunction.

Conclusion The olfactory function recovered more gradually in the nasoseptal flap elevation group than in the conventional trans-sphenoidal approach group, but there was no difference between the two groups after 6 months.



Publication History

Received: 20 May 2022

Accepted: 04 September 2022

Article published online:
23 October 2023

© 2023. Fundação Otorrinolaringologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 
  • References

  • 1 Prevedello DM, Doglietto F, Jane Jr JA, Jagannathan J, Han J, Laws Jr ER. History of endoscopic skull base surgery: its evolution and current reality. J Neurosurg 2007; 107 (01) 206-213
  • 2 Lee KH, Yang CW. Endoscopic endonasal skull base repair with nasoseptal flap. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 2015; 58 (01) 7-11
  • 3 Jalessi M, Jahanbakhshi A, Amini E, Kamrava SK, Farhadi M. Impact of nasoseptal flap elevation on sinonasal quality of life in endoscopic endonasal approach to pituitary adenomas. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273 (05) 1199-1205
  • 4 Alobid I, Enseñat J, Mariño-Sánchez F. et al. Impairment of olfaction and mucociliary clearance after expanded endonasal approach using vascularized septal flap reconstruction for skull base tumors. Neurosurgery 2013; 72 (04) 540-546
  • 5 Kim JR, Kim E, Jeong JI. The short-term recovery patterns of olfactory function after trans-sphenoidal approach with nasoseptal flap elevation. J Korean Skull Base Soc 2017; 12 (02) 25-32
  • 6 Gudziol V, Lötsch J, Hähner A, Zahnert T, Hummel T. Clinical significance of results from olfactory testing. Laryngoscope 2006; 116 (10) 1858-1863
  • 7 Paluzzi A, Gardner P, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Snyderman C. The expanding role of endoscopic skull base surgery. Br J Neurosurg 2012; 26 (05) 649-661
  • 8 Graffeo CS, Dietrich AR, Grobelny B. et al. A panoramic view of the skull base: systematic review of open and endoscopic endonasal approaches to four tumors. Pituitary 2014; 17 (04) 349-356
  • 9 Ciric I, Ragin A, Baumgartner C, Pierce D. Complications of transsphenoidal surgery: results of a national survey, review of the literature, and personal experience. Neurosurgery 1997; 40 (02) 225-236 , discussion 236–237
  • 10 Soudry E, Psaltis AJ, Lee KH, Vaezafshar R, Nayak JV, Hwang PH. Complications associated with the pedicled nasoseptal flap for skull base reconstruction. Laryngoscope 2015; 125 (01) 80-85
  • 11 Rivera-Serrano CM, Snyderman CH, Gardner P. et al. Nasoseptal “rescue” flap: a novel modification of the nasoseptal flap technique for pituitary surgery. Laryngoscope 2011; 121 (05) 990-993
  • 12 Hadad G, Bassagasteguy L, Carrau RL. et al. A novel reconstructive technique after endoscopic expanded endonasal approaches: vascular pedicle nasoseptal flap. Laryngoscope 2006; 116 (10) 1882-1886
  • 13 Hummel T, Nordin S. Olfactory disorders and their consequences for quality of life. Acta Otolaryngol 2005; 125 (02) 116-121
  • 14 Majovsky M, Astl J, Kovar D, Masopust V, Benes V, Netuka D. Olfactory function in patients after transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas-a short review. Neurosurg Rev 2019; 42 (02) 395-401
  • 15 Tam S, Duggal N, Rotenberg BW. Olfactory outcomes following endoscopic pituitary surgery with or without septal flap reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2013; 3 (01) 62-65
  • 16 Carvalho ACM, Dolci RLL, Rickli JCK. et al. Evaluation of olfactory function in patients undergoing endoscopic skull base surgery with nasoseptal flap. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2022; 88 (01) 15-21
  • 17 Rotenberg BW, Saunders S, Duggal N. Olfactory outcomes after endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. Laryngoscope 2011; 121 (08) 1611-1613