Premium
Differences in clinical characteristics and prognosis of sudden low‐ and high‐frequency hearing loss
Author(s) -
Choo OakSung,
Yang Suk Min,
Park Hun Yi,
Lee Jong Bin,
Jang Jeong Hun,
Choi Seong Jun,
Choung YunHoon
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the laryngoscope
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.181
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1531-4995
pISSN - 0023-852X
DOI - 10.1002/lary.26382
Subject(s) - medicine , otorhinolaryngology , hearing loss , dexamethasone , guideline , prospective cohort study , randomized controlled trial , sudden hearing loss , audiology , surgery , pathology
Objectives/Hypothesis We compared the clinical characteristics between acute low‐ and high‐frequency hearing loss (LF and HF, respectively) patients, and the efficacy of three different treatment protocols (systemic steroids, intratympanic steroid injection, and combination therapy). Study Design Prospective, randomized controlled study. Methods A total of 111 patients diagnosed with LF or HF were treated on an outpatient basis. Each group was randomly divided into three equal subgroups based on therapy: oral steroid, intratympanic dexamethasone injection (IT), and combination therapy. Hearing gain was estimated by comparing pre‐ and post‐treatment pure‐tone averages. Recovery rate was assessed by Clinical Practice Guideline: Sudden Hearing Loss from the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. Results In comparison of chief complaints, ear fullness and hearing loss were more common in the LF and HF group, respectively ( P = .033 and P = .001, respectively). Hearing recovery rates were significantly different between the two groups (i.e., 74.1% [40/54] in the LF group and 45.6% [26/57] in the HF group; P < .001). Oral steroid therapy was most effective in the LF group ( P = .017). In the HF group, all three modalities showed similar results, although IT tended to be the most effective ( P = .390). Conclusions There were differences in chief complaints and treatment responses between LF and HF patients. Although they showed similar partial damage in the cochlea, the pathophysiology of LF and HF may be quite different. Level of Evidence 1b. Laryngoscope , 127:1878–1884, 2017