Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 16733335

Posttraumatic olfactory loss.

Abstract

Head injury is the leading cause of posttraumatic anosmia. Complete or partial loss of olfactory function may occur when the nasal passages are blocked, olfactory nerves are injured or there are contusions or hemorrhages in olfactory centers of the brain. Evaluation of patients with posttraumatic olfactory loss should include a physical examination by the otolaryngologist. Nasal endoscopy and radiological studies should be performed as well as olfactory function tests to determine the degree and type of olfactory impairment. Although treatment options may be limited, physicians should provide information and counseling regarding the risks and hazards associated with loss of olfactory function. For some individuals such as cooks, firefighters, and research scientists, an assessment of vocational activities should be performed prior to reentry into the workplace. Individuals with impaired olfactory function may be unable to detect important warning signs such as gas leaks, volatile chemical fumes and fires and therefore place themselves and coworkers at an increased risk for serious injury or death.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Richard M Costanzo, Takaki Miwa. 2006. Posttraumatic olfactory loss.. https://doi.org/10.1159/000093753

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The impacts and outcomes of implementing head injury guidelines: clinical experience in Thailand.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for head injury in a trauma referral system in Songkla province, Thailand. METHODS: The CPG was developed by a local multidisciplinary team and implemented using multi-faceted methods. The outcome of patients with head injury from three community hospitals and a university hospital (Songklanagarind Hospital) was reported in terms of "talk and deteriorate" patients and a "poor" outcome for patients with severe head injury. Changes to clinical practice were observed where the guidelines were implemented. RESULTS: 1000 patients with head injury were enrolled from 1st August 2005 to 15th January 2006. The incidence of "talk and deteriorate" patients was 10.5% and a poor outcome was noted in 35.5% of patients with severe head injury, similar to the results of a previous study in Songklanagarind Hospital (p>0.05). Following implementation of the guidelines, 19.8% of patients underwent CT scanning with similar outcomes for alert patients with and without basal skull fracture (p>0.05). The clinician-nurse relationship also improved and there was closer collaboration between hospitals. Short observation in community hospitals for repeat neurological examination may be an appropriate strategy for management of some patients with minor head injury. CONCLUSIONS: Local ownership, an appropriate implementation strategy and working as a multidisciplinary team are key factors for success in implementing the CPG. Basal skull fracture may not be an absolute criterion for CT imaging of the head. Further initiatives will be developed in response to the incidence of "talk and deteriorate" patients.

Craniocerebral Trauma↗

A neurosurgeon in Iraq: a personal perspective.

The practice of neurosurgery in a war zone provides enormous challenges and risks for the individual surgeon working in such an austere and hostile environment, but also provides a unique opportunity to treat a high volume of severe penetrating and blast injuries to the head, neck and the spine. The purpose of this article is to present the author's personal experiences and perspective as a military neurosurgeon working in the US Airforce Hospital in Balad (the 332nd Expeditionary Medical Group) Iraq in for 3 months in 2004. Strategies for managing the mass casualties, and the severe penetrating craniofacial trauma are presented and the reasons for the low mortality of troops injured in Iraq are discussed.

Craniocerebral Trauma↗

Nutritional support for head-injured patients.

BACKGROUND: Head injury increases the body's metabolic responses, and therefore nutritional demands. Provision of an adequate supply of nutrients is associated with improved outcome. The best route for administering nutrition (parenterally (TPN) or enterally (EN)), and the best timing of administration (for example, early versus late) of nutrients needs to be established. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect on mortality and morbidity of alternative strategies of providing nutritional support following head injury. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by computerised searches of the Cochrane Injuries Group specialised register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Research Register, Web of Science and other electronic trials registers. Reference lists of trials and review articles were checked. The searches were last updated in July 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of timing or route of nutritional support following acute traumatic brain injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. Information was collected on death, disability, and incidence of infection. If trial quality was unclear, or if there were missing outcome data, trialists were contacted in an attempt to get further information. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 11 trials were included. Seven trials addressed the timing of support (early versus delayed), data on mortality were obtained for all seven trials (284 participants). The relative risk (RR) for death with early nutritional support was 0.67 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.07). Data on disability were available for three trials. The RR for death or disability at the end of follow-up was 0.75 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.11). Seven trials compared parenteral versus enteral nutrition. Because early support often involves parenteral nutrition, three of the trials are also included in the previous analyses. Five trials (207 participants) reported mortality. The RR for mortality at the end of follow-up period was 0.66 (0.41 to 1.07). Two trials provided data on death and disability. The RR was 0.69 (95% Cl 0.40 to 1.19). One trial compared gastric versus jejunal enteral nutrition, there were no deaths and the RR was not estimable. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that early feeding may be associated with a trend towards better outcomes in terms of survival and disability. Further trials are required. These trials should report not only nutritional outcomes but also the effect on death and disability.

Craniocerebral Trauma↗