Intratympanic Steroid Use for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Current Otolaryngology Practice

2019 ◽  
Vol 128 (6) ◽  
pp. 490-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Lechner ◽  
Liam Sutton ◽  
Mark Ferguson ◽  
Yasmin Abbas ◽  
Jaswinder Sandhu ◽  
...  

Objective: To investigate the current practice of intratympanic steroid (ITS) injection for sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) in the United Kingdom and link the data with data from the United States and continental Europe. Methods: A survey of 21 questions was distributed to members of the British Society of Otology using an online survey platform via ENT UK. Data obtained from UK otolaryngologists (n = 171) were integrated with previously published data from other countries, including the United States (n = 63) and continental Europe (n = 908). Results: In the United Kingdom, 62% of responding otolaryngologists use ITS injection for SSNHL, while 38% do not. Of those using ITS, 59% use it as first-line treatment, either using it in conjunction with oral steroids (51%) or using it as monotherapy (8%). Of those that use ITS, a majority (83%) use it as salvage therapy when primary treatment with systemic steroids has failed, and similar results are found in the continental Europe and US surveys. The most commonly used preparation is dexamethasone. Responses to questions regarding treatment regimes used are enlightening and show considerable variation in the treatment regimes used within and between countries. Conclusions: There is a wide variation in practice with regards to ITS for SSNHL hearing loss in the United Kingdom, United States, and continental Europe. In the absence of protocols or definitive guidance from published literature, knowledge of contemporary practice may help guide or encourage reevaluation of clinical practice and will help guide the design of future clinical trials.

2011 ◽  
Vol 145 (5) ◽  
pp. 813-817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel H. Coelho ◽  
Leroy R. Thacker ◽  
David W. Hsu

Objectives. To evaluate current trends in the management of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL), determine if variance in diagnostic and treatment protocols exists, and compare diagnostic and treatment strategies of ISSNHL between nonotologists/neurotologists (NONs) and otologists/neurotologists (ONs). Study Design. Cross-sectional survey of practicing otolaryngologists. Setting. Otolaryngology practices within the United States. Subjects and Methods. In January 2010, a survey was mailed to 500 NONs and 500 ONs. Data were collected and analyzed using χ2, standard deviations, and variance. Results. A variety and distribution of responses were seen in the definition of ISSNHL, including dB loss necessary for diagnosis, number of consecutive frequencies involved, and maximum duration of hearing loss. Differences in diagnostic tools were also seen, with 50.4% of respondents (NON 34.2%, ON 66.7%; P = .0001) always using magnetic resonance imaging in their workup. Of the total respondents, 26.7% (NON 35.0%, ON 18.3%; P < .0001) preferred oral steroids alone; 22.1% (NON 11.7%, ON 32.5%; P < .0001) preferred a combination of oral and intratympanic steroids. Of the respondents, 68.6% (NON 57.5%, ON 80.0%; P = .0003) would continue with additional treatment after partial response; 20.8% (NON 33.3%, ON 8.3%; P < .005) would retreat with oral steroids alone and 46.6% (NON 35.8%, ON 57.3%; P < .05) with intratympanic injections. Overall, 69.2% (NON 45.8%, ON 92.5%; P = .0001) were very comfortable managing ISSNHL. Conclusion. Significant differences exist in the diagnosis and treatment of ISSNHL. Such lack of uniformity highlights the need for strong evidence-based research—ultimately leading to formalized practice guidelines and educational outreach.


2020 ◽  
pp. 117-150
Author(s):  
Jonathan Hopkin

This chapter traces the response to inequality and financial collapse in the United Kingdom, with the anti-system Right represented by the Brexit campaign, and the Left by Jeremy Corbyn’s takeover of the Labour Party. Like Trump’s election in the United States, which it preceded by less than six months, the Brexit vote was an anti-system vote, a vote of rejection of the existing political establishment and the economic policies it had implemented since the 1980s. Just as Trump’s victory mobilized entrenched racial divides in the United States, Brexit reflected a long-standing skepticism about European integration in British society. The chapter then argues that Brexit formed part of a wider anti-system revolt in Britain, which replaced the centrist politics of the 1990s and 2000s with a deeply polarized politics pitting half the country against the other.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document