scholarly journals Comparison of 2 Different Intratympanic Methylprednisolone Injection Schedules in Combination With Intravenous Dexamethasone for Unilateral Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2020 ◽  
pp. 014556132090481
Author(s):  
Yanlu Lyu ◽  
Fanqian Zeng ◽  
Min Yan ◽  
Zhou Zhou ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Systemic Steroid ◽  
Once Daily

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss is a common otologic disease in clinic. Systemic and intratympanic steroid treatment have been proved to be effective, but the regimens vary from center to center. The purpose of the study is to analyze the effects of the combined application of intravenous dexamethasone and intratympanic methylprednisolone injection in different time strategies for the treatment of unilateral sudden sensorineural hearing loss. A retrospective chart review was performed for the period from March 2016 to June 2018 at our Department of Otorhinolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery. A total number of 61 patients who met the academy criteria for unilateral sudden hearing loss were included and grouped based on the time to introduce intratympanic methylprednisolone. All the patients received intravenous dexamethasone 10 mg once daily for 5 days, followed 5 mg once daily for the next 7 days. Intratympanic methylprednisolone (40 mg) was injected every other day 4 times into all patients. This regimen was commenced on day 1 in group 1 and on day 6 in group 2. The pre and posttreatment pure-tone audiograms were analyzed. Sixty-one patients met our inclusion criteria. No significant differences were observed between patients’ demographics or pretreatment hearing thresholds. In the 3 months posttreatment pure-tone audiogram assessment, the mean hearing threshold improvement were similar between groups with no frequency specificity. The curative rate in both groups were similar and satisfying. Two patients with diabetes mellitus had persistent small perforations. Some patients had other transient discomfort that disappeared before discharge. The different timing of initiation of intratympanic methylprednisolone injection does not significantly affect the outcome of the treatment for sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Thus, we suggest that intratympanic steroid injection should not be applied as a first-line method except for patients who do not respond early to systemic steroid therapy.

scholarly journals “Clinical Profile & Prognostic Factors In Patients with Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss”

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 5830-5835
Author(s):  
Md. Feroz Hossen ◽  
Mahbubul Alam Choudhury
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Winter Season ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Clinical Profile ◽  
Pure Tone Audiogram

Introduction: Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is an emergency disease requiring immediate diagnosis and treatment. The incidence of ISSNHL in the Western countries’ population was estimated to 5–20 per 100,000 inhabitants. The etiology of ISSNHL remains unknown. Its pathogenesis is most often suggested to be due to a disturbed microcirculation and infection. Objective: To study the clinical profile & prognostic factors in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Material and Methods: A retrospective study was carried out from patients of sudden sensineural hearing loss (SSNHL) presenting to ENT Department ofNorthern Private Medical College, Rangpur, Bangladesh from January to June-2020. All patients were given intravenous steroids as treatment modality for 14 days and pure tone audiogram was done every 3 days during hospital admission. It was followed by oral steroids in tapering dose for further 14 days. After 1 month, audiogram was done again. After 1 month if hearing threshold was decreased by more than 50% of presenting one, then it was labeled as improved. Results:Total 51 patients (55ears) with age ranging from 6-70 years (average-38.5 years) were included. Three fourth were male. Presentation was 1-14days after onset of hearing loss (average- 3.7days) with pure tone audiogram (PTA) of 38-117dB (average 83.1dB). The flat audiogram (62.3%) was most common type. Smoking was present in 14 patients and tinnitus in 30 ears. Hemoglobin ranged from 7.3-18.7gm %( average- 15.3gm/dl). PTA post treatment was 8-73dB (average- 56dB). Average age of improved patient was 39.8years which was lower than non-improved patients (42.3years). In improved patients, average PTA at presentation was 77.9dB while it was 86.6dB in non-improved patients. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the age distribution and clinical characteristics of ISSNHL patients vary according to levels of hearing loss. Moreover, ISSNHL patients with vertigo tend to sufer from a more severe hearing loss. Further studies are needed to obtain better knowledge about the etiopathogenesis of SSNHL.  SSNHL is more commonly seen in male patients with polycythaemia and is commonly presented in winter season and is frequently associated with tinnitus. Young age and lower audiogram threshold at presentation favor prognosis.

scholarly journals Comparison of Hearing Outcomes of Systemic Steroid Monotherapy and Intratympanic Steroid Combined Treatment in Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 155-160
Author(s):  
Kyungil Jang ◽  
So Yun Lim ◽  
Eun-Ju Jeon ◽  
Hyun Jin Lee
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Systemic Steroid ◽  
Partial Recovery ◽  
Simultaneous Group ◽  
Hearing Outcomes

Background and Objectives Steroid treatment is used as a main treatment modality for sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL). Intratympanic injection of steroid (ITS) has been used and its therapeutic efficacy reported as being comparable to the systemic steroid administration (SS). This study compares the hearing outcomes of using ITS and SS simultaneously and SS alone.Subjects and Method Retrospective chart review was performed for 146 patients with SSNHL. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the method of treatment (SS and ITS simultaneously vs. SS alone). The inclusion criteria were starting treatment within 7 days after onset, and follow up pure tone audiometry at least 4 weeks after treatment. Hearing gain for pure tone threshold of each frequency and average of 4 frequencies (500 Hz, 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, and 4000 Hz) were compared between both groups.Results The improvement in PTA at 1-month follow-up was 27.3±20.0 dB HL in the simultaneous group and 19.1±19.5 dB HL in the SS alone group; this was not statistically significant. Complete or partial recovery at 1-month follow-up was observed in 65.3% of the simultaneous group and 69.6% of the SS alone group; this was also not significant.Conclusion There was no significant difference in hearing outcomes between the simultaneous and SS alone group. The simultaneous therapy does not appear to be superior to the SS alone therapy. Further studies using more population and longer follow-up periods are necessary.

scholarly journals A Smartphone-Based Approach to Screening for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Cross-Sectional Validity Study

10.2196/23047 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e23047
Author(s):  
Heng-Yu Haley Lin ◽  
Yuan-Chia Chu ◽  
Ying-Hui Lai ◽  
Hsiu-Lien Cheng ◽  
Feipei Lai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Scale Difference

Background Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is an otologic emergency that warrants urgent management. Pure-tone audiometry remains the gold standard for definitively diagnosing SSNHL. However, in clinical settings such as primary care practices and urgent care facilities, conventional pure-tone audiometry is often unavailable. Objective This study aimed to determine the correlation between hearing outcomes measured by conventional pure-tone audiometry and those measured by the proposed smartphone-based Ear Scale app and determine the diagnostic validity of the hearing scale differences between the two ears as obtained by the Ear Scale app for SSNHL. Methods This cross-sectional study included a cohort of 88 participants with possible SSNHL who were referred to an otolaryngology clinic or emergency department at a tertiary medical center in Taipei, Taiwan, between January 2018 and June 2019. All participants underwent hearing assessments with conventional pure-tone audiometry and the proposed smartphone-based Ear Scale app consecutively. The gold standard for diagnosing SSNHL was defined as the pure-tone average (PTA) difference between the two ears being ≥30 dB HL. The hearing results measured by the Ear Scale app were presented as 20 stratified hearing scales. The hearing scale difference between the two ears was estimated to detect SSNHL. Results The study sample comprised 88 adults with a mean age of 46 years, and 50% (44/88) were females. PTA measured by conventional pure-tone audiometry was strongly correlated with the hearing scale assessed by the Ear Scale app, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of .88 (95% CI .82-.92). The sensitivity of the 5–hearing scale difference (25 dB HL difference) between the impaired ear and the contralateral ear in diagnosing SSNHL was 95.5% (95% CI 87.5%-99.1%), with a specificity of 66.7% (95% CI 43.0%-85.4%). Conclusions Our findings suggest that the proposed smartphone-based Ear Scale app can be useful in the evaluation of SSNHL in clinical settings where conventional pure-tone audiometry is not available.

S210 – Asymmetric Sudden SNHL: Is All This Screening Necessary?

2008 ◽  
Vol 139 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. P146-P146
Author(s):  
Selena E. Heman-Ackah ◽  
Dunn Ryan ◽  
Tina C. Huang
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Diagnostic Evaluation ◽  
Diagnostic Screening ◽  
Tertiary Care Facility

Objectives A number of factors have been identified that contribute to the presentation of asymmetric sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ASSNHL). Routinely patients presenting with ASSNHL undergo a battery of serologic testing and imaging in an attempt to determine a cause. The study will assess the utility of this diagnostic evaluation in elucidating a cause of an asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. At the conclusion of this presentation, the participants should be able to: 1) Understand the utility of diagnostic screening in the management of ASSNHL. 2) Understand the cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic screening for ASSNHL. Methods The study design is a retrospective chart review. Charts from patients presenting to the otolaryngology clinic of a tertiary care facility between January 1, 2000, and November 30, 2007, with ASSNHL confirmed with audiometric evaluation were reviewed. Diagnostic tests included in the work-up of ASSNHL and test results were recorded. Percentage of positive tests was determined and compared to national data. Cost analysis of the diagnostic battery was performed. Results All patients presenting with sudden sensorineural hearing loss received 1 or more of the following serologic and radiographic tests: ANA, cholesterol, creatinine, DNA-ds, ESR, blood glucose, Lyme titer, rheumatoid factor, RPR, FTA-ABS, HSP, T3, TSH and MRI with gadolinium. The average cost associated with the full diagnostic evaluation is greater than $1,500. The positive rate for any of these tests was extremely low. Conclusions The utility of the comprehensive ASSNHL evaluation should be reconsidered. The choice of diagnostic evaluation should be directed by patient risk factors and exposures.

scholarly journals COVID-19-related sudden sensorineural hearing loss

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nada Khaleel Yaseen ◽  
Raid M. Al-Ani ◽  
Rasheed Ali Rashid
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Smoking Habit ◽  
Hearing Threshold ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Unilateral Deafness ◽  
Nose And Throat

Background: Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) can be a feature of COVID-19. It may present alone or with other symptoms of the disease. However, there is little written in the literature about its occurrence. We aimed to evaluate the socio-clinical characteristics and outcome of confirmed mild- to moderate COVID-19 cases with SSNHL in Tikrit city, Iraq. Materials and Methods: This descriptive study was conducted at the Otolaryngology Department, Tikrit General Hospital, Tikrit city, Iraq. The period of the study was from December 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021.Mild and moderate COVID-19 subjects confirmed by real-time polymerase reaction were included in the study. Detailed demographic (age, gender, and smoking habit) and clinical characteristics (onset and duration of deafness, side, severity, associated ear, nose, and throat symptoms, and comorbidity) were recorded for every patient. Outcomes following the steroid treatment protocol were also registered. Results: SSNHL was identified in 26 patients, of whom 20 (76.9%) were women, 20 (76.9%) were in the age group ≥ 30 years, and 21 (80.8%) were non-smokers. Around three-quarters of the subjects were identified within the first week of deafness occurrence. Bilateral (18/26) was more common than unilateral deafness (8/26); therefore, the total number of deaf ears was 44. Besides, bilateral symmetrical deafness (13/18) outnumbered the asymmetrical type (5/18). Around three-quarters were of moderate severity. The most common otological symptom was tinnitus (25/26). The most common nose and throat symptom was anosmia (6/26). The mean hearing threshold before and after treatment with oral steroids ± intratympanic steroids was 50.91 ± 11.777 dB and 40.24 ± 15.693, respectively. One patient with bilateral SSNHL was lost to follow-up; the remaining number of deaf ears was 42, and half of them were partially improved. The outcome of the treatment showed no statistically significant relation with the duration, side, and severity of SSNHL (p>0.05). Conclusion: The majority of COVID-19-related SSNHL cases presented within one week of onset, with bilateral outnumbering unilateral cases. Tinnitus was the most common associated symptom. Treatment with steroids achieved partial improvement in half of the cases, and this outcome was not affected by the duration, side, and severity of deafness.

scholarly journals Which Is More Important for the Prognosis of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss with Vertigo, Canal Paresis or Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo?

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 101-107
Author(s):  
Yong-Hwi An ◽  
Hyun Joon Shim
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo ◽  
Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Horizontal Canal ◽  
Canal Paresis ◽  
Positional Vertigo ◽  
Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo

Objectives: This study was performed to determine characteristics and the prognostic values in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) with comorbid ipsilateral canal paresis (CP) and/or benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). Methods: Of the 338 patients with a diagnosis of idiopathic SSNHL, 29 patients (8.6%) with CP and 24 patients (7.1%) with BPPV were recruited and compared to 23 patients with SSNHL and vertigo but without CP or BPPV. The patients were evaluated for their initial hearing threshold, type of canal involved, response to repositioning maneuvers, and hearing outcome for 6 months. Results: Patients with CP (+) BPPV (‒) showed lower pure-tone averages than those with CP (‒) BPPV (+) on initial and follow-up audiograms. The improvement in pure-tone averages was less in the CP (+) BPPV (‒) group than in the CP (‒) BPPV (+) group. The improvement in speech discrimination scores was less in the CP (+) BPPV (‒) group than in the CP (‒) BPPV (‒) group. BPPV most commonly involved the posterior canal (15 of 24, 62.5%), followed by the horizontal canal (13 of 24, 54.2%). Three of 24 patients (12.5%) had recurrences of BPPV. Conclusions: CP is a more serious sign for hearing recovery than BPPV, although both CP and BPPV are negative prognostic indicators of auditory function in SSNHL. Concurrent CP and/or BPPV in SSNHL suggest combined damage to the vestibule and may indicate severe and widespread labyrinthine damage, leading to a poor prognosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document