Comparison of Different Treatment Methods for Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorToroslu, Tolgahan
dc.contributor.authorErdogan, Halil
dc.contributor.authorCaglar, Ozge
dc.contributor.authorGuclu, Oguz
dc.contributor.authorDerekoy, Fevzi Sefa
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-27T20:38:43Z
dc.date.available2025-01-27T20:38:43Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.departmentÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractObjective: To evaluate the effectiveness of different therapies for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss and prognostic factors, and determine the most successful treatment according to the audiogram type and time from onset to treatment. Methods: A total of 90 cases from February 2009 to January 2015 were classified under Group I oral treatment (methylprednisolone, acyclovir, betahistine-dihydrochloride, and vitamin B12); Group II oral treatment + intratympanic steroids (ITS); Group III oral treatment + hyperbaric oxygen; and Group IV only ITS. A pure tone average (PTA) improvement of less than 10 dB was assessed as noimprovement, a PTA of 10 dB or more or a 10% or more increase in the speech discrimination score (SDS) as partial improvement, and a hearing threshold within 10 dB and SDS within 5%-10% of the unaffected ear as full improvement. Results: Overall, 32.2% patients showed full and 28.9% showed partial improvement, whereas 38.9% showed no improvement. There was no significant difference in terms of mean hearing gain between the different treatment methods. As the degree of hearing loss and time from onset to treatment increased, improvement worsened (p<0.05). Descending audiogram had lower mean hearing gains compared to other groups (p=0.014). There was no significant effect of age, sex, tinnitus and/or vertigo, and systemic disease on treatment success (p>0.05). Conclusion: The most important factors affecting prognosis were the time from onset to treatment, hearing loss severity, and audiogram type. Only ITS avoided side effects and reduced hospitalization. ITS in the first two weeks, followed by hyperbaric oxygen were considered as the treatment priority.
dc.identifier.doi10.5152/tao.2017.2337
dc.identifier.endpage232
dc.identifier.issn2667-7466
dc.identifier.issn2667-7474
dc.identifier.issue4
dc.identifier.pmid30701119
dc.identifier.startpage226
dc.identifier.trdizinid302088
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5152/tao.2017.2337
dc.identifier.urihttps://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/302088
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12428/23725
dc.identifier.volume56
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000456924700009
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakTR-Dizin
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherGalenos Publ House
dc.relation.ispartofTurkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20250125
dc.subjectSudden hearing loss
dc.subjectsteroids
dc.subjecthyperbaric oxygen therapy
dc.subjectintratympanic injection
dc.titleComparison of Different Treatment Methods for Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
TR-Dizin İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu