Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2026
A Cross-Sectional Study of Patient Views on Acceptability of Olfactory Implants.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Klyvyte Gabija, Ansley William, Ergisi Mehmet, Camp Lois, Choudari Prajakta, Glibbery Natalia, Jawad Mohammed, Myuran Tharsika, Boak Duncan, Philpott Carl
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Unlike other chronic conditions, effective therapies for smell and taste disorders (SATDs) remain scarce. Olfactory implants are an emerging area of therapy aimed at restoring the sense of smell through electrical stimulation of the olfactory pathway. This survey aimed to assess patient opinions and the acceptability of olfactory implants, including willingness to undergo surgery, as well as factors influencing their decision-making process.
DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a cross-sectional survey consisting of two online questionnaires circulated via the charity SmellTaste, exploring features and impacts of SATDs, and opinions surrounding olfactory implants in those formally diagnosed or self-identifying with SATDs.
RESULTS: A total of 410 participants completed the primary questionnaire assessing general demographics and olfactory experiences. A further 47 participants completed the second, more in-depth questionnaire about the perceptions on olfactory implants. Across both questionnaires, more females responded than males-a trend seen throughout research on SATDs. An overwhelming majority of participants would be willing to wear a non-implantable device to help detect odour quantity and quality, especially if used to detect dangers such as gas and fires. Opinions on surgically implantable devices varied more. Most patients were amenable prior to any mention of risks, but further probing revealed understanding risks and success rates of any procedure were key to guiding patient decisions.
CONCLUSION: There are patients with olfactory loss who are willing to use an olfactory implant; therefore, more extensive research into the safety, viability and efficacy of olfactory implants is needed.
DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a cross-sectional survey consisting of two online questionnaires circulated via the charity SmellTaste, exploring features and impacts of SATDs, and opinions surrounding olfactory implants in those formally diagnosed or self-identifying with SATDs.
RESULTS: A total of 410 participants completed the primary questionnaire assessing general demographics and olfactory experiences. A further 47 participants completed the second, more in-depth questionnaire about the perceptions on olfactory implants. Across both questionnaires, more females responded than males-a trend seen throughout research on SATDs. An overwhelming majority of participants would be willing to wear a non-implantable device to help detect odour quantity and quality, especially if used to detect dangers such as gas and fires. Opinions on surgically implantable devices varied more. Most patients were amenable prior to any mention of risks, but further probing revealed understanding risks and success rates of any procedure were key to guiding patient decisions.
CONCLUSION: There are patients with olfactory loss who are willing to use an olfactory implant; therefore, more extensive research into the safety, viability and efficacy of olfactory implants is needed.