How Long Does It Take to Taste Food Again After a Uppp

World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Cervix Surg. 2018 Mar; 4(1): 77–83.

Post-tonsillectomy taste dysfunction: Myth or reality?

Received 2018 Feb 6; Accepted 2018 Feb 28.

Abstract

Lingual branches of the glossopharyngeal nerve (CN Ⅸ) are at risk of injury during tonsillectomy due to their proximity to the muscle layer of the palatine tonsillar bed. Withal, information technology is unclear how often this common surgery leads to sense of taste disturbances. We conducted a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, PsychInfo, and Ovid Medline to evaluate the bachelor literature on post-tonsillectomy taste disorders. Studies denoting self-reported dysfunction, as well as those employing quantitative testing, i.due east., chemogustometry and electrogustometry, were identified. Case reports were excluded. Of the 8 original articles that met our inclusion criteria, just 5 employed quantitative taste tests. The highest prevalence of self-reported taste disturbances occurred 2 weeks after surgery (32%). Two studies reported post-operative chemic gustometry scores consistent with hypogeusia. However, in the two studies that compared pre- and post-tonsillectomy test scores, one found no difference and the other plant a significant difference simply for the left rear of the tongue 14 days mail service-op. In the 2 studies that employed electrogustometry, elevated mail-operative thresholds were noted, although only one compared pre- and mail-operative thresholds. This study establish no pregnant differences. No report employed a normal control group to assess the influences of repeated testing on the sensory measures. Overall, this review indicates that studies on post-tonsillectomy taste disorders are limited and ambiguous. Future inquiry employing appropriate control groups and sense of taste testing procedures are needed to ascertain the prevalence, duration, and nature of mail-tonsillectomy taste disorders.

Keywords: Tonsillectomy, Taste, Ageusia, Hypogeusia, Taste disturbances

Introduction

In add-on to providing pleasure from eating, drinking, and satisfying hunger, the taste system serves a range of other of import physiologic functions. For example, it helps to distinguish nutrients from toxins,1 provides signals to facilitate nutrient digestion,2, 3 and regulates salt and energy intake.4 Taste disorders can pb to malnourishment, significant gains or losses in weight, and changes in dietary decisions.v, 6

To aid preserve such functions, this important sensory system exhibits considerable anatomical redundancy. Taste buds are differentially innervated throughout the mouth by branches from three dissimilar cranial nerves. The chorda tympani branch of the facial nerve (CN Ⅶ) innervates the sense of taste buds on the anterior two-thirds of the tongue, whereas the greater superficial petrosal branch of this nerve innervates taste buds on the soft palate. The lingual branches of the glossopharyngeal nerve (CN Ⅸ) innervate gustation buds on the posterior 3rd of the tongue and the upper epiglottis, and the superior laryngeal branch of the vagus nerve (CN Ⅹ) innervates taste buds on the lower epiglottis and esophagus.seven, 8

Transient or permanent taste disturbances can occur from a wide variety of causes.9 These include medications, infections, radiation to the head and cervix, exposure to oral irritants (including tobacco), and vitamin deficiencies.six, 10 Among surgeries that can lead to sense of taste dysfunction are middle ear surgery,11, 12, 13 tonsillectomy,xiv, fifteen third molar extraction,16 microdirect laryngoscopy,17 and potentially uvulopalatopharyngoplasty.18 Additionally, diseases similar xerostomia, low, diabetes mellitus, or renal failure have been reported to crusade some degree of sense of taste dysfunction.5, 6

Taste disorders can be clinically classified into qualitative (dysgeusia or phantogeusia) and quantitative (hypogeusia or ageusia) disorders, the latter of which tin exist measured using standardized testing.nineteen Qualitative disorders are more likely to impact quality of life, since they typically manifest every bit bitter, metal, salty, or other unpleasant gustatory modality sensations. They are a common reason for a referral to specialized chemosensory disorder clinics. Quantitative taste disorders are more rare and more than likely to go unnoticed,twenty and must be distinguished from the olfactory disorders that often nowadays as diminished "gustation" function. The olfactory receptors are stimulated by the retronasal food vapors, i.east., vapors that enter the olfactory region via the nasal pharynx during deglutition, and are responsible for the majority of "taste" sensations other than those of sweetness, sour, bitter, salty, and umami. These include such season sensations as chocolate, coffee, licorice, steak sauce, strawberry, lemon, spaghetti sauce, and mint to name a few.21

The anatomic human relationship of CN Ⅸ to the muscle layer of the palatine tonsillar bed is variable and can pb to the injury of the lingual co-operative of the glossopharyngeal nerve during tonsillectomy.14, 15 CN Ⅸ enters the pharynx anterior to the stylopharyngeus muscle by passing between superior and eye pharyngeal constrictors (Fig. ane). The lingual branches of CN Ⅸ pass between the superior and center pharyngeal constrictor muscles, but in some cases can be partially exposed or adherent to the tonsillar capsule due to incomplete coverage of these nerve branches by the pharyngeal constrictor muscles.15

CN Ⅸ anatomic relationship to pharyngeal constrictor muscles^a. sc – superior pharyngeal constrictor muscle; mc – middle pharyngeal constrictor muscle; sp – stylopharyngeus muscle; pg – palatoglossus muscle or anterior tonsillar pillar; pp – palatopharyngeus musculus or posterior tonsillar pillar; lp – levator veli palatini muscle; tp – tensor veli palatini muscle; cp –circumvallate papillae; at – attachment at the torus tubarius. ^aelements of the drawing were obtained from http://www.wesnorman.com.

According to the National Center for Wellness Statistics, tonsillectomy is one of the most frequently performed surgeries in otolaryngology.22 The implications of such damage for gustation function have not been thoroughly investigated. Numerous lawsuits against surgeons have come forward in multiple countries in relation to tonsillectomy-related taste problems, raising a question virtually the prevalence and nature of gustation changes after this operation.23, 24, 25, 26 This commodity reviews the extant literature on mail service-tonsillectomy gustatory modality function. Its goal is to provide the reader with an understanding as to what is known most the effect of this common operation on such function and to provide management for time to come research in this area.

Materials and methods

A systematic review of literature was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRIMSA) statement. Two contained reviewers conducted a search using PubMed Plus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, PsychInfo, and Ovid Medline. All original reports on mail-tonsillectomy gustatory modality function published in English prior to May 2017 were included, with the exception of unmarried case reports. The search terms included tonsillectomy AND taste OR ageusia OR hypogeusia OR dysgeusia OR gustatory modality disturbances OR tongue sensation OR complexity. Our systematic search involved title-abstract screening followed by total-text screening, with the focus on study design, sample size, and length of follow-up (Fig. 2). Due to methodological diversity of the selected articles and the pocket-size number of publications identified during the search, a meaningful meta-assay could not be performed. The prevalence of post-tonsillectomy sense of taste disturbances was recorded from the patient's perspective, every bit well equally on the footing of quantitative assessment of office [i.e., electrogustometry (EGM) and chemogustometry], when bachelor.

Flowchart of study selection.

Results

Prior to 2000, the literature on gustation dysfunction later on tonsillectomy was express to unmarried instance reports. These example reports have been summarized in other publications and are not addressed in this review.27, 28 We identified 8 original reports of case serial and cohort studies that examined mail-tonsillectomy taste role, all from Europe or Japan (Tabular array 1). As summarized in Table 2, the patient-reported charge per unit of gustatory modality dysfunction before long after surgery (4–14 days) varied widely among these studies, ranging from viii.6% to 32%.29, 30 In almost all cases, patients reported symptom resolution within 6 months of surgery. Two studies reported evidence of mail-tonsillectomy hypogeusia based on post-operative chemogustometry testing (Tabular array iii).15, 31 Two other studies compared pre- and mail service-operative test scores and establish no significant divergence except in ane written report,31, 32 where the exam scores on the left rear of the natural language scores were significantly different 14 days after surgery.32 Two studies reported elevated mail-tonsillectomy EGM threshold values.15, 29 However, just ane of these studies performed pre- and post-operative tests, and these thresholds did not differ significantly from one another.29 Details of these and other studies are listed in Table one, Tabular array 2, Tabular array 3.

Table 1

Mail-tonsillectomy gustation disturbances in the literature.

First author (Twelvemonth)	Ref. no.	Male: Female person	Written report blueprint	Study method	Taste evaluation method
Tomita (2002)	15	six:5	Case series	Retrospective	Patient survey; Chemical gustometry mail-op (filter paper deejay method); EGM post-op
Tomofuji (2005)	29	23:12	Case serial	Prospective	Patient survey; EGM pre- and mail-op
Mueller (2007)	33	23:42	Case series	Prospective	Patient survey; Chemical gustometry (filter newspaper test strips) pre- and post-op
Smithard (2009)	35	64:36	Instance-control	Prospective	Patient survey
Stathas (2010)	32	24:36	Case-control	Prospective	Chemic gustometry (solution application to the tongue) postal service-op
Windfuhr (2010)	31	40:lx	Instance series	Retrospective	Chemic gustometry (soaked cotton balls) pre- and post-op
Heiser (2010)	30	n/a	Instance series	Prospective	Patient survey mail service-op
Heiser (2012)	38	n/a	Case series	Prospective	Patient survey post-op

Tabular array 2

Patient-reported mail service-tonsillectomy taste disturbances.

Start author (Twelvemonth)	Ref. no.	Reported post-op symptoms	Post-op follow-up	Prevalence
Tomita (2002)	15	Dysgeusia, hypogeusia	4–7 months	northward/a (xi cases)
Tomofuji (2005)	29	Hypogeusia, decreased tongue sensation	4–six days	eight.vi% (iii of 35)
			8 days–1.five months	0 (0 of 35)
Mueller (2007)	33	"Transient" dysgeusia	"days"	23% (fifteen of 65)
Smithard (2009)	35	"Altered taste sensation"	1 mean solar day	11% (eleven of 100)
			3 months	0 (0 of 11)
Windfuhr (2010)	31	Dysgeusia	4 days	29% (29 of 100)
			14 days	13% (thirteen of 100)
			21 days	half-dozen% (half-dozen of 100)
			iii months	0 (0 of 100)
Heiser (2010)	30	Dysgeusia, hypogeusia	14 days	32% (60 of 188)
		Dysgeusia, hypogeusia	6 months	eight.3% (15 of 181)
Heiser (2012)	38	Dysgeusia, hypogeusia	32 ± x months	0.1% (2 of fifteen)

Tabular array three

Chemic gustometry and EGM in mail-tonsillectomy taste studies.

First writer (Year)	Ref. no.	Post-op follow-up	Chemic gustometry results	EGM results
Tomita (2002)	15	4–7 months	Positive for hypogeusia, ageusia	Increased threshold values postal service-op
Tomofuji (2005)	29	i week	Non performed	Increased threshold values post-op, no significant deviationb
Mueller (2007)	33	2–5.5 months	No significant differencea	Not performed
Stathas (2010)	32	1 twenty-four hour period	Positive for hypogeusia (due north = 54)	Not performed
		0.5 months	Positive for hypogeusia (due north = ii)	Not performed
		1 month	Positive for hypogeusia (n = ane)	Not performed
Windfuhr (2010)	31	4 days	No significant differencea	Not performed
		14 days	Significantly different just for left rare tonguea	Not performed

In 2002, Tomita and Ohtuka15 described 11 Japanese cases of post-tonsillectomy taste changes with 3 cases being attributed to direct or indirect injury to CN Ⅸ during tonsillectomy. These cases were identified from a retrospective review of 3583 outpatient visits to their gustatory modality disorder clinic, where both electrical and chemic quantitative gustation testing was performed. In two of the eleven cases, taste changes were transient (symptoms resolved in 5–7 months). Taste changes in the remaining viii cases were attributed to causes unrelated to tonsillectomy [medication effects (n = 2), dietary zinc deficiency (north = three), or unknown causes (due north = three)]. The low prevalence noted by these authors (eleven/iii, 583; 0.31%) may reflect to a big degree the types of referrals to their clinic, not the proportion of people who experience altered gustation function following tonsillectomy in the full general population.

In prospective study published in 2005, Tomofuji et al29 reported that 3 of 35 (8.half-dozen%) tonsillectomy patients complained of taste disturbance 4–6 days after the procedure. This was attributed to pressure on the natural language in two cases (elevated EGM threshold for both the anterior and posterior tongue), and zinc deficiency in one case (normal EGM threshold; Zn/Cu ratio below 0.7).29 All three patients recovered taste awareness inside i.5 months. Although the EGM values of the 35 patients were nominally higher post-operatively than pre-operatively [respective means (SDs) = v.5 dB (1.nine) & 4.6 dB (1.vii)], this small result was not statistically significant. Moreover, both pre- and post-operative ways were within normal limits.

In 2007, Mueller et al33 had 65 High german or Swiss tonsillectomy patients self-assess their taste function before and after tonsillectomy on a scale that ranged from no taste (0) to fantabulous taste (x). Of these 65 patients, 32 were tested with chemical gustometry (filter paper strips) on the left and right sides of the anterior and posterior tongue before and afterwards surgery. No pre-mail differences in the taste strip examination scores were found (32 trials in front and back of the tongue; respective pre-post posterior means = 23.7 & 24.8 and pre-mail inductive means = 27.1 & 27.8). Although the sense of taste mean scores were lower in the back than in the front end of the tongue (p = 0.001), such front end-back differences are well established in the general population.34 The self-assessed taste ratings were lower mail service-op relative to pre-op ratings, and 15 of the 65 patients (23%), some of whom were interviewed over the telephone, reported experiencing transient dysgeusia "days" after surgery. This study is limited by inconsistent length of follow-upward and no differentiation betwixt the basic taste qualities.

In 2009, Smithard et al35 administered a questionnaire on the day prior to belch to 104 tonsillectomy patients and 43 appendectomy patients (controls) that inquired nigh altered post-surgical tongue sensations. The patients were from a district full general hospital in England. These investigators found that 28 of the tonsillectomy patients (28%) had aberrant tongue sensations one day after surgery, with 11 (11%) reporting altered taste. The authors contacted 23 of the 28 symptomatic patients 3 months after surgery. Only i patient had persistent tongue paresthesia. The median time for return to normal natural language awareness was two weeks. This report was limited by the lack of actual taste testing and, similar earlier studies, the fact that self-reports of taste dysfunction are often unreliable.20 Additionally, since only patients who reported altered natural language awareness one twenty-four hour period after surgery were contacted, those with a possible delayed onset of symptoms would non accept been sampled.

That same year, Stathas et al31 assessed the sense of taste function of 60 Greek patients prior to and i-, fifteen- and thirty-days after tonsillectomy. They evaluated chemical taste sensation employing a process modified from that of Doty et al.36 The standard procedure (half-dozen 15 μl trials × 4 tastants × 4 tongue regions = 96 trials) was changed by decreasing the number of trials per stimulus to i trial each and adding iii different stimulus volumes (15 μl, 30 μl, 60 μl). Thus, the total number of trials was reduced to 48 (3 trials × 4 tastants × 4 tongue regions = 48 trials). 1 day afterwards surgery the ability to place the taste qualities was found to be low on the posterior tongue (area supplied by CN Ⅸ), particularly for the sour- and bitter-tasting stimuli. For example, for the 15 μlsolution, 90% of tested subjects (54 of sixty) failed to correctly identify the stimulus on that day. On the subsequent test occasions, operation improved, with 95% or more than of the trials being right by 30 days. It is believable that some aberration of perception across loss was present on mail-operative day one (e.g., a taste quality confusion).37 If ageusia alone was present, a given subject field would be expected, past gamble lone, to correctly identify about one-fourth of the trials (25%) or to fail ∼75% of the trials. This would translate to ∼75% of subjects failing the task, not xc%.33

In 2010, Windfuhr et al31 published a retrospective written report of 100 German language or Swiss mail-tonsillectomy patients and described patient-reported taste changes in 29 patients four days after surgery. Chemic taste testing was performed before surgery also as 4 and 14 days after surgery on both sides of the tongue using soaked cotton assurance. In all 29 reported cases of taste disturbance, the symptoms resolved within iii months of the process. The difference in taste office before and later surgery for all patients was statistically significant only on the left side of the rear tongue and only 14 days afterward tonsillectomy, which was attributed to the improvement in sweetness sensation between day 4 and twenty-four hours 14 afterwards tonsillectomy. The authors suggested that wound healing scored by a medico iv, 14 and 21 days afterward the operation led to the return of normal sense of taste office. They also commented on the possibility of the measurement bias due to their use of non-standardized gustation cess methods.

A prospective German written report by Heiser et al published in 2010 surveyed 188 patients following tonsillectomy.30 Of 188 patients surveyed 2 weeks after surgery, 32% (threescore patients) reported taste disturbances. This decreased to viii.iii% half dozen months afterward surgery (15 of 181 surveyed patients). In near cases, when questioned nigh the presence of a "strange taste," the participants reported presence of a metallic or bitter gustatory modality at the posterior natural language (expanse innervated by the lingual branches of CN Ⅸ). No quantitative taste function testing was performed in this study.

In a follow-up study published ii years later, Heiser and colleagues interviewed 15 subjects who reported gustatory modality disturbances two weeks after tonsillectomy when surveyed in 2010 [follow-upwardly of (32 ± x) months after tonsillectomy] and institute that two patients (0.nine%) nonetheless experienced taste dysfunction, although their symptoms had changed in character over fourth dimension.38 Unfortunately, as in their earlier work, quantitative taste tests were non performed. Although the written report attempted to provide long-term follow-up information on mail-tonsillectomy gustation distortion, just viii% of the subjects from their original study in 2010 (15 patients of 188) were surveyed.

Since 2012, no studies have been published on the influences of tonsillectomy on taste function. Nonetheless, numerous book chapters, informational papers, online blogs, lawsuits against surgeons and articles in the popular press have brought this problem to the attention of both, otolaryngologists and the general public.xx, 23, 24, 25, 26, 39, 40, 41

Word

Gustation dysfunction has been previously described as 1 of the rare complications of tonsillectomy, although, as noted in this review, the prevalence and nature of such dysfunction is enigmatic. Relatively few studies have quantitatively assessed such role earlier and subsequently tonsillectomy, despite reports suggesting that, in some cases, mail service-tonsillectomy taste disturbances may be severe enough to produce long-term dietary alterations that result in weight changes and subtract quality of life.42, 43 It should non be overlooked, however, that developed tonsillectomy is a rather traumatic feel for some patients, and can produce considerable post-operative swelling as well as hurting during swallowing and mastication. This in itself can lead to decreased oral intake, and sub-optimal ability to appreciate the flavor of foods. Some patients may perseverate in their conventionalities that they cannot taste as a consequence of such factors even though return of normal function has occurred.

The eight studies identified in this literature review15, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38 reported a rate of transient taste dysfunction post-obit tonsillectomy as high as 29%–32% (Tabular array 2). Unfortunately, these metrics were non e'er supported past psychophysical testing (EGM or chemical gustometry), with simply five studies providing quantitative sense of taste testing and even fewer reporting on the difference between pre- and post-operative test results. Each study utilized dissimilar psychophysical testing methods, complicating the comparing of results. Additionally, some authors did not make a distinction betwixt quantitative and qualitative sense of taste disturbances when reporting symptoms.

One of the potential causes of post-tonsillectomy hypogeusia and dysgeusia is direct or indirect injury to CN Ⅸ from ligation or stretching of the nerve, or from scarring of the nerve during post-operative healing.15, 27, 44, 45 The lingual branches of CN Ⅸ are at chance of injury during tonsillectomy due to anatomic variation of its relationship to superior constrictor muscles of the palatine tonsillar bed (Fig. 1). In a study of 83 cadaver dissections, Ohtsuka et al46 reported that only in 23.iv% of cases they passed at a distance beneath the styloglossus muscle and were at a low risk of injury during tonsillectomy. In 55.ane% of cases, these branches of CN Ⅸ were only partially protected by the muscle fibers of the stylopharyngeus, palatopharyngeus and superior pharyngeal constrictors. In 21.v% of cases, the lingual branches of CN Ⅸ were directly adherent to the tonsillar capsule due to incomplete coverage of the tonsillar fossa by the pharyngeal constrictor muscles, placing information technology at higher risk of injury.

More recently, a written report by Hill et al47 reported that in 138 reviewed tonsillectomy operative reports in a pediatric subset of patients, twenty-viii cases (20.iii%) had at least one lingual branch of CN Ⅸ exposed at the end of surgery. Ix cases (nine.5%) had bilateral nerve exposure. Interestingly, the authors found statistically pregnant predilection for the visualization of the left glossopharyngeal nerve (24 of 37 fretfulness exposed on the left vs. 13 of 37 on the right). This study farther highlights the vulnerability of the glossopharyngeal nerve branches during tonsillectomy.

Although the nature of qualitative sense of taste disturbances such as dysgeusia and phantogeusia is non completely understood, several investigators take proposed that alterations in the unremarkably redundant and parallel afferent signals to the brain can pb to dysgeusia or phantogeusia symptoms. Such gustation anomalies can result from the damage to any one of the cranial nerves responsible for gustation sensation (CN Ⅶ, CN Ⅸ or CN Ⅹ), with the increase in the response to the stimuli from the other cranial nerves supplying sense of taste.12, 48 Prior reports of eye ear surgery complications accept shown that damage to the chorda tympani can event in non just decreased sense of taste, simply also in taste phantoms, notably metallic, bitter or salty sensations.49, 50 Studies by Bartoshuk et al6 Lehman et al48 and Halpern et al50 back up the theory of increased CN Ⅸ responses in the presence of anesthesia to the chorda tympani nervus, reflecting physiologic compensation to minimize the loss of taste awareness from this branch of CN Ⅶ. In post-tonsillectomy dysgeusia cases reported in the past, pinnacle of EGM threshold in the posterior tongue has been observed.14, 27, 28 This correlated with the patient reports of unpleasant or bitter sense of taste, which could exist explained by the increase in the response to the stimuli delivered to the uninjured areas of the tongue.

Conclusion

Due to pocket-sized sample sizes, variable lengths of follow-up, lack of uniformity in study pattern and cess methods, and the fact that many patients neglect to recognize deficits in their taste sensation until it is tested,20 the available literature does not provide enough information to guess the prevalence, duration and nature of postal service-tonsillectomy sense of taste disorders. Case reports suggest that gustatory modality disturbances can persist in some patients 18–24 months after surgery.15, 27, 28, 46 Conspicuously, long-term studies are needed to decide whether dysfunction can remain even longer and whether, like tinnitus and some other problems, patients develop strategies to ignore an ongoing sensation. Overall, the studies reviewed in this article suggest that taste disturbances should be included every bit a potential run a risk in the pre-operative counseling of patients prior to tonsillectomy. Futurity studies are needed to provide more information on the prevalence of long-term taste dysfunction following tonsillectomy and the mechanisms to aid patients in coping with them when they occur.

Footnotes

Peer review nether responsibility of Chinese Medical Association.

References

1. Yarmolinsky D.A., Zuker C.S., Ryba N.J. Common sense about gustation: from mammals to insects. Jail cell. 2009;139:234–244. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. McLaughlin S., Margolskee R.F. The sense of gustatory modality. Am Sci. 1994;82:538–545. [Google Scholar]

iii. Woschnagg H., Stollberger C., Finsterer J. Loss of sense of taste is loss of weight. Lancet. 2002;359:891. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Shin Y.Chiliad., Martin B., Kim Westward. Ghrelin is produced in sense of taste cells and ghrelin receptor null mice bear witness reduced gustatory modality responsivity to salty (NaCl) and sour (citric acid) tastants. PLoS One. 2010;5 e12729. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

five. Schiffman S.S., Graham B.One thousand. Taste and smell perception impact appetite and immunity in the elderly. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2000;54(suppl iii):S54–S63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Bartoshuk L.K., Catalanotto F., Hoffman H., Logan H., Snyder D.J. Gustation damage (otitis media, tonsillectomy and head and cervix cancer), oral sensations and BMI. Physiol Behav. 2012;107:516–526. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Lewis D., Slap-up W.E. The class of the nerve fibers transmitting sensation of gustation. Arch Surg. 1930;21:249–288. [Google Scholar]

viii. Zahm D.S., Munger B.50. The innervation of the primate fungiform papilla–development, distribution and changes following selective ablation. Brain Res. 1985;356:147–186. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Bromley Southward.Grand., Doty R.L. Clinical disorders affecting gustatory modality: an update. In: Doty R.L., editor. Handbook of Olfaction and Taste. tertiary ed. John Wiley & Sons; Hoboken, N.J.: 2015. pp. 887–910. [Google Scholar]

10. Landis B.N., Lacroix J.S. Postoperative/posttraumatic gustatory dysfunction. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;63:242–254. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

xi. Saito T., Manabe Y., Shibamori Y. Long-term follow-upward results of electrogustometry and subjective gustatory modality disorder after middle ear surgery. Laryngoscope. 2001;111:2064–2070. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Yanagisawa Thou., Bartoshuk L.1000., Catalanotto F.A., Karrer T.A., Kveton J.F. Anesthesia of the chorda tympani nerve and taste phantoms. Physiol Behav. 1998;63:329–335. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Catalanotto F.A., Bartoshuk L.M., Östrum 1000.G., Gent J.F., Fast 1000. Effects of anesthesia of the facial nerve on sense of taste. Chem Senses. 1993;18:461–470. [Google Scholar]

xiv. Windfuhr J.P., Schlöndorff Chiliad., Sesterhenn A.Grand., Kremer B. From the practiced's office: localized neural lesions following tonsillectomy. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266:1621–1640. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Tomita H., Ohtuka K. Gustation disturbance after tonsillectomy. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 2002:164–172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Klasser Chiliad.D., Utsman R., Epstein J.B. Taste change associated with a dental process: example written report and review of the literature. J Can Dent Assoc. 2008;74:455–461. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Gaut A., Williams M. Lingual nerve injury during intermission microlaryngoscopy. Arch Otolaryngol Caput Neck Surg. 2000;126:669–671. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Rombaux P., Hamoir G., Bertrand B., Aubert G., Liistro G., Rodenstein D. Postoperative pain and side furnishings after uvulopalatopharyngoplasty, laser-assisted uvulopalatoplasty, and radiofrequency tissue volume reduction in master snoring. Laryngoscope. 2003;113:2169–2173. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

nineteen. Snyder D.J., Sims C.A., Bartoshuk L.M. Psychophysical measures of man oral sensation. In: Doty R.L., editor. Handbook of Olfaction and Gustation. 3rd, ed. John Wiley & Sons; Hoboken: 2015. pp. 751–773. [Google Scholar]

20. Soter A., Kim J., Jackman A., Tourbier I., Kaul A., Doty R.L. Accuracy of self-written report in detecting taste dysfunction. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:611–617. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Burdach K.J., Doty R.Fifty. The effects of mouth movements, swallowing, and spitting on retronasal odor perception. Physiol Behav. 1987;41:353–356. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Hall M.J., Schwartzman A., Zhang J., Liu X. Ambulatory surgery information from hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers: United states of america, 2010. Natl Health Stat Study. 2017:1–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Windfuhr J.P. Malpractice claims and unintentional outcome of tonsil surgery and other standard procedures in otorhinolaryngology. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;12 Doc08. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Simonsen A.R., Duncavage J.A., Becker S.Southward. A review of malpractice cases afterwards tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74:977–979. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Wienke A. Impairment of taste perception and extent of patient didactics in tonsillectomy. Laryngorhinootologie. 1992;71:487–488. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Perrino A., Gessini L. Permanent disorders of taste afterward tonsillectomy. Medicolegal considerations. Clin Otorinolaringoiatr. 1961;13:624–629. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Collet S., Eloy P., Rombaux P., Bertrand B. Gustatory modality disorders after tonsillectomy: case report and literature review. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2005;114:233–236. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Randall D.A. Taste impairment following tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy: an unusual complexity. Ear Nose Pharynx J. 2010;89:E15–E18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Tomofuji S., Sakagami M., Kushida Chiliad., Terada T., Mori H., Kakibuchi M. Taste disturbance after tonsillectomy and laryngomicrosurgery. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2005;32:381–386. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Heiser C., Landis B.Northward., Giger R. Taste disturbance following tonsillectomy–a prospective study. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:2119–2124. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Windfuhr J.P., Sack F., Sesterhenn A.M., Landis B.N., Chen Y.S. Post-tonsillectomy taste disorders. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;267:289–293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Stathas T., Mallis A., Naxakis Due south. Taste role evaluation afterwards tonsillectomy: a prospective study of 60 patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;267:1403–1407. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Mueller C.A., Khatib S., Landis B.Northward., Temmel A.F., Hummel T. Gustatory part after tonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133:668–671. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Doty R.L., Heidt J.M., MacGillivray K.R. Influences of historic period, natural language region, and chorda tympani nerve sectioning on signal detection measures of lingual gustation sensitivity. Physiol Behav. 2016;155:202–207. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Smithard A., Cullen C., Thirlwall A.Southward., Aldren C. Tonsillectomy may cause altered tongue sensation in developed patients. J Laryngol Otol. 2009;123:545–549. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Doty R.50., Haxel B.R. Objective assessment of terbinafine-induced taste loss. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:2035–2037. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Doty R.50., Chen J.H., Overend J. Taste quality confusions: influences of age, smoking, PTC taster status, and other subject field characteristics. Perception. 2017;46:257–267. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Heiser C., Landis B.N., Giger R. Sense of taste disorders later tonsillectomy: a long-term follow-up. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:1265–1266. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Petrozzello D. ENTtoday. John Wiley & Sons; Hoboken: 2012. Post-tonsillectomy taste disorders rare merely present; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]

42. Beck C.Due north. Glossopharyngeus and tonsillectomy (author's transl) Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg) 1979;58:463–465. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Goins M.R., Pitovski D.Z. Posttonsillectomy taste distortion: a significant complication. Laryngoscope. 2004;114:1206–1213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Arnhold-Schneider M., Bernemann D. Incidence of taste disorders following tonsillectomy. HNO. 1987;35:195–198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Sakuma A., Kobayashi Y., Takahashi F. Taste disorders afterwards tonsillectomy. Jpn J Tonsil. 1990;29:99–103. [Google Scholar]

46. Ohtsuka K., Tomita H., Murakami Yard. Anatomy of the tonsillar bed: topographical relationship between the palatine tonsil and the lingual branch of the glossopharyngeal nerve. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 2002:99–109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Colina C.A., Thimmappa V., Smith M.C., Chen E.Y. Incidence of visualization of the glossopharyngeal nerve after pediatric tonsillectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154:532–534. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Lehman C.D., Bartoshuk L.M., Catalanotto F.C., Kveton J.F., Lowlicht R.A. Event of anesthesia of the chorda tympani nervus on taste perception in humans. Physiol Behav. 1995;57:943–951. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Bull T.R. Taste and the chorda tympani. J Laryngol Otol. 1965;79:479–493. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Halpern B.P., Nelson L.M. Bulbar gustatory responses to inductive and to posterior natural language stimulation in the rat. Am J Physiol. 1965;209:105–110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

smithpreigaing43.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6051494/

Share this post