Search

There have been few investigations on the epidemiology, etiology, and medical management of acute unilateral vestibulopathy (AUV). Short-term pharmaceutical resolutions include vestibular symptomatic suppressants, anti-emetics, and some cause-based therapies. Anticholinergics, phenothiazines, antihistamines, antidopaminergics, benzodiazepines, and calcium channel antagonists are examples of vestibular suppressants. Some of these medications may show their effects through multiple mechanisms. In contrast, N-acetyl-L-leucine, Ginkgo biloba, and betahistine improve central vestibular compensation. Currently, AUV pathophysiology is poorly understood. Diverse hypotheses have previously been identified which have brought about some causal treatments presently used. According to some publications, acute administration of anti-inflammatory medications may have a deleterious impact on both post-lesional functional recovery and endogenous adaptive plasticity processes. Thus, some authors do not recommend the use of corticosteroids in AUV. Antivirals are even more contentious in the context of AUV treatment. Although vascular theories have been presented, no verified investigations employing anti-clotting or vasodilator medications have been conducted. There are no standardized treatment protocols for AUV to date, and the pharmacological treatment of AUV is still questionable. This review addresses the most current developments and controversies in AUV medical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: So far, no original studies explored non-randomized, standardized protocols for COVID-19 associated olfactory dysfunction. The main objective was to determine the efficacy of a new protocol for post-COVID olfactopathy while assessing the benefit of adding adjuvant therapies to olfactory training. Methods: Patients suffering from long-lasting post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction were evaluated. A non-randomized protocol based on individual nasal endoscopy findings and patient's preferences was applied. Patients were assigned for olfactory training alone or olfactory training + adjuvant therapy. Participants performed olfactory objective and subjective evaluations at first consultation and 3 months after treatment, and results were compared. Results: A total of 47 patients were enrolled. All groups showed significant improvement in olfactory thresholds at 3-month follow-up suggesting protocol effectiveness (olfactory training group alone showed a mean threshold difference of 2.9, P <.001; Olfactory training + Topical Corticosteroid showed a mean threshold difference of 4, P =.006; Olfactory training + Topical Corticosteroid + Vitamin B complex showed a mean threshold difference of 4.4, P =.006; Olfactory training + Intranasal Vitamin A and E showed a mean threshold difference of 4.4, P <.001). Olfactory training alone showed lower mean olfactory threshold improvement, when compared to patients undergoing olfactory training + adjuvant therapy (olfactory training alone mean improvement 2.9 ± 2.3 vs olfactory training + adjuvants mean improvement 4.3 ± 2.458, P =.03). Conclusions: This is one of the first studies to demonstrate results in the treatment of post-COVID-19 persistent olfactory impairment. A customized approach based on endoscopy findings and patient's preferences may be a valid option for the management of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory disorder. Adjuvant therapy could be considered in addition to olfactory training, but further studies are needed in order to confirm their effectiveness in this setting. Level of evidence: 2c (outcomes research). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Septorhinoplasty (SRP) is one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide. There is a recognized debate about the impact of nasal surgery on olfactory function (OF). The study's objective was to assess the effect of SRP on late postoperative OF. A comprehensive review and meta-analysis were employed to assess OF after SRP. All the integrated studies used objective instruments to quantify OF before and after surgery. A literature search was conducted, and the selected works were evaluated, computed, and finally included in a meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the NIH Guidance for Evaluating the Quality of Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group. Only the latest follow-up OF measurements provided by each research were considered in the analysis. The 95% confidence interval of the effect magnitude for each study was calculated to elucidate effect sizes. Eleven studies were included in the analysis. Five studies reported late OF improvement (45.5%), five reported no alteration in OF (45.5%), and only one study reported OF impairment after SRP (9%). Some works described a transitory decline in OF shortly following surgery, followed by postoperative improvement. A pooled meta-analysis showed that OF was not significantly altered after SRP (p = 0.10) in the late follow-up. SRP surgery seems to constitute a safe procedure concerning OF in the long term. According to research, OF may deteriorate temporarily after surgery with later improvement, sometimes to higher values than baseline. The anticipated evolution of OF after intervention could be discussed during the preoperative consultation for SRP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]