Olfactory function assessed with orthonasal and retronasal testing, olfactory bulb volume, and chemosensory event-related potentials

Objective: To investigate whether differences in olfactory function between healthy individuals and patients with olfactory loss could be detected by various diagnostic tests. Design: Psychophysical testing of orthonasal and. retronasal olfactory functions, magnetic resonance imaging of olfactory bulb (013) volume, and chemosensory event-related potential (ERP) measurement performed between January 1, 2005, and October 31, 2005. Setting: Academic tertiary referral medical center. Patients: Eleven healthy individuals with normal olfactory function (NL) and 11 patients with nasal polyposis (NP), 11 with posttraumatic olfactory loss (PT), and 11 with postinfectious olfactory loss (PI) were included in this study. Main Outcome Measures: Orthonasal and retronasal olfactory test results, magnetic resonance imaging-based OB volume, and ERPs to both olfactory and intranasal trigeminal stimulation. Results: Orthonasal and retronasal testing revealed that NL individuals had higher scores than patients with NP, PT, or PI. Retronasal scores were higher in NP patients compared with PT and PI patients. The OB volumes were higher in NL individuals compared with NP, PT, and PI patients. The OB volumes in PT patients were significantly lower than those from NP and PI patients. Olfactory ERPs were different between NL individuals and NP, P, T, and PI patients, and trigeminal ERP's were significantly different when comparing NL individuals with NP patients. For the entire cohort, a significant correlation was found between orthonasal testing and OB volume, between retronasal testing and OB volume, and between both orthonasal and retronasal testing and olfactory ERP amplitudes. Olfactory ERPs were recorded in the 11 NL individuals and in 3 NP, 3 PT, and 4 PI patients, defined as responders. Orthonasal and retronasal test scores, OB volume, and olfactory ERPs were significantly larger in responders compared with nonresponders. Conclusions: Significant differences in various tests that evaluate olfactory function were detectable in a cohort of NL individuals and NP, PT, and PI patients. This finding suggests that these diagnostic tools provide information in terms of the clinical assessment of olfactory function. Future studies will investigate their combined use in terms of the prognosis of olfactory function in patients with olfactory loss.