Skip Navigation



Chemical Senses Advance Access published online on November 23, 2005

Chemical Senses, doi:10.1093/chemse/bjj002
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
31/1/27    most recent
bjj002v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pfaar, O.
Right arrow Articles by Hummel, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pfaar, O.
Right arrow Articles by Hummel, T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Accepted October 31, 2005

Article

Mechanical Obstruction of the Olfactory Cleft Reveals Differences Between Orthonasal and Retronasal Olfactory Functions

Oliver Pfaar 1, Basile Nicolas Landis 2, Johannes Frasnelli 3, Karl-Bernd Hüttenbrink 4, and Thomas Hummel 3 *

1 Center for Rhinology and Allergology, Mannheim University, Wiesbaden, Germany
2 Smell and Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Dresden Medical School, Fetscherstrasse 74, D-01307 Dresden, Germany; Rhinology-Olfaction Unit, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital of Geneva, CH 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
3 Smell and Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Dresden Medical School, Fetscherstrasse 74, D-01307 Dresden, Germany
4 Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Thomas Hummel, E-mail: thummel{at}rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de


   Abstract

Following up on recent observations in patients with nasal polyposis (NP), the present study aimed to investigate whether a mechanical obstruction of the anterior olfactory cleft (OC) would produce differential effects on orthonasal and retronasal olfactory functions. To this end, we studied 33 healthy subjects in a randomized trial. Sponges with high content of saline were either placed in the OC or on the respiratory epithelium, such that this was blinded to both subject and observer. The results indicated that orthonasal (P = 0.04) but not retronasal (P = 0.15) olfactory identification ability was lower when the OC was blocked. This confirms the idea that differences between orthonasal and retronasal olfactory functions, as observed in NP patients, are, at least to some degree, due to mechanical obstruction of the anterior portion of the OC. The present data also suggest that mechanical obstruction is a means to induce reversible hyposmia void of side effects which can be performed in a blinded fashion. This might become a valuable model of hyposmia for future investigations.

Keywords: hyposmia model; interaction; olfaction; retronasal; Sniffin' Sticks; sponge.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck SurgHome page
H. Chang, H. J. Lee, J.-H. Mo, C. H. Lee, and J.-W. Kim
Clinical Implication of the Olfactory Cleft in Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis and Olfactory Loss
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, October 1, 2009; 135(10): 988 - 992.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck SurgHome page
E. A. Leon, F. A. Catalanotto, and J. W. Werning
Retronasal and Orthonasal Olfactory Ability After Laryngectomy
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, January 1, 2007; 133(1): 32 - 36.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.