European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 276, Issue 4, pp 1247–1250 | Cite as

Effects of septorhinoplasty on smell perception

  • Luciana Carolina Peruzzo KokuboEmail author
  • Thiago Bittencourt Ottoni Carvalho
  • Marco Aurélio Fornazieri
  • Eduardo Monteiro de Castro Gomes
  • Cláudia Maggy Faulstich Alves
  • André Luiz Lopes Sampaio
Short Communication



To assess whether significant changes in smell perception occur after septorhinoplasty, and evaluate whether septum deviation, allergic rhinitis, and surgical technique affect postoperative smell perception.


Thirty-four patients (> 18 years old) awaiting septorhinoplasty were included, while those with previous severe hyposmia or anosmia were excluded. The participants self-assessed their smell perception using a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS), where 0 mm indicated the inability to smell and 100 mm indicated normal smell perception. The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) was applied before the procedure, and 4 and 12 weeks after surgery.


The UPSIT score showed no significant changes at 4 (p = 0.59; 95% CI − 0.35 to + 2) or 12 weeks (p = 0.16; 95% CI − 1.13 to + 0.66). A comparison of the VAS scores before and 4 weeks after surgery (p = 0.62; 95% CI − 0.63 to + 0.39) yielded similar results. However, the average VAS scores improved 12 weeks after surgery (p = 0.007; 95% CI + 0.22 to + 1.30). Olfactory function, measured using the UPSIT, was not influenced by open or closed surgical techniques (p ≥ 0.10), the presence or absence of rhinitis (p ≥ 0.15), or obstructive septum deviation (p ≥ 0.38). Twelve weeks after surgery, self-evaluated smell perception was better in patients who underwent a closed procedure rather than an open procedure (p = 0.006; 95% CI: −1.39 to −0.37).


A validated test demonstrates that septorhinoplasty does not compromise smell perception 4 and 12 weeks after surgery. However, it might improve smell perception by the self-report observation.


Septorhinoplasty Smell perception Olfaction Rhinoplasty Septal deviation Septoplasty VAS UPSIT 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Research involving human participants

A prospective observational study was made involving humans. The study was reviewed and approved by the local research ethics committee.

Informed consent

Patients were included after they read and signed the informed consent form.


  1. 1.
    Wysocki CJ, Gilbert AN (1989) National Geographic Smell Survey. Effects of age are heterogenous. Ann N Y Acad Sci 561:12–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Toller S (1999) Assessing the impact of anosmia: review of a questionnaire’s finding. Chem Senses 24:705–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seiden AM (2004) Postviral olfactory loss. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 37:1159–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Champion R (1966) Anosmia associated with corrective rhinoplasty. Br J Plast Surg 19(2):182–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shemshadi H, Azimian M, Onsori MA, Azizabadi Farahani M (2008) Olfactory function following open rhinoplasty: a 6-month follow-up study. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord 8:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Razmpa E, Saedi B, Safavi A, Mohammadi S (2013) Olfactory function after nasal plastic surgery. B-ENT 9:269–275Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Randhawa PS, Watson N, Lechner M, Ritchie L, Choudhury N, Andrews PJ (2016) The outcome of septorhinoplasty surgery on olfactory function. Clin Otolaryngol 41:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fiser A (1990) Changes of olfaction due to aesthetic and functional nose surgery. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 44(4):457–460Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bousquet J, Van Cauwenberge P, Khaltaev N, Aria Workshop Group; World Health Organization (2001) Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 108(5 Suppl):S147–S334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doty RL, Shaman P, Kimmelman CP, Dann MS (1984) University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: a rapid quantitative olfactory function test for the clinic. Laryngoscope 94(2 Pt 1):176–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fornazieri MA, Santos CA, Bezerra TFP, Pinna FR, Voegels RL, Doty RL (2015) Development of normative data for the Brazilian adaptation of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. Chem Senses 40:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dürr J, Lindemann J, Keck T (2002) Untersuchungen zur Riechfunktion vor und nach funktionell-ästhetischer Nasenoperation. HNO 50:626–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Damm M, Eckel HE, Julgehulsing M, Hummel T (2003) Olfactory changes at threshold and suprathreshold levels following septoplasty with partial inferior turbinectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 112:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Philpott CM, Rimal D, Tassone P, Prinsley PR, Premachandra DJ (2008) A study of olfactory testing in patients with rhinological pathology in the ENT clinic. Rhinology 46:34–39Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luciana Carolina Peruzzo Kokubo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thiago Bittencourt Ottoni Carvalho
    • 1
  • Marco Aurélio Fornazieri
    • 2
    • 3
  • Eduardo Monteiro de Castro Gomes
    • 4
  • Cláudia Maggy Faulstich Alves
    • 1
  • André Luiz Lopes Sampaio
    • 1
  1. 1.Hospital Universitário de BrasíliaUniversity of Brasília School of MedicineBrasíliaBrazil
  2. 2.Pontifical Catholic University of ParanáLondrinaBrazil
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryLondrina State UniversityLondrinaBrazil
  4. 4.Statistical DepartmentUniversity of BrasíliaBrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations