Bilateral versus unilateral sudden sensorineural hearing loss / 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志

OBJECTIVE@#To analyze the clinical characteristics and treatment effect between bilateral (bi-) and unilateral (uni-) sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL).@*METHOD@#Four hundred and eighty cases of SSNHL were retrospective study, which were divided into two groups of bi-SSNHL (n = 40) and uni-SSNHL (n = 440). Clinical characteristics and treatment effects were compared of the two groups.@*RESULT@#The incidence rate of bi-SSNHL was 8.3 percent and uni-SSNHL was 91.7 percent of all patients with SSNHL. Bi-SSNHL occurs more commonly in patients of old age, diabetes mellitus, and lipid panes abnormalities compared to uni-SSNHL. Twenty-eight ears in the bi-SSNHL group showed hearing recovery (35%), compared with 56.4 percent of patients with uni-SSNHL.@*CONCLUSION@#Bi-SSNHL and uni-SSNHL may have a completely different clinical characteristics and treatment effect, that implies a different pathophysiology and prognosis. Recognition their different clinical characteristics and treatment effect between bilateral and unilateral SSNHL can help in counseling and managing the patients and correctly evaluate the prognosis.

Bilateral versus unilateral sudden sensorineural hearing loss / 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志

Objective:To analyze the clinical characteristics and treatment effect between bilateral(bi-)and unilateral(uni-) sudden sensorineural hearing loss(SSNHL).Method:Four hundred and eighty cases of SSNHL were retrospective study,which were divided into two groups of bi-SSNHL(n=40) and uni-SSNHL(n=440).Clinical characteristics and treatment effects were compared of the two groups.Result:The incidence rate of bi-SSNHL was 8.3 percent and uni-SSNHL was 91.7 percent of all patients with SSNHL. Bi-SSNHL occurs more commonly in patients of old age, diabetes mellitus, and lipid panes abnormalities compared to uni-SSNHL. Twenty-eight ears in the bi-SSNHL group showed hearing recovery (35%),compared with 56.4 percent of patients with uni-SSNHL.Conclusion:Bi-SSNHL and uni-SSNHL may have a completely different clinical characteristics and treatment effect,that implies a different pathophysiology and prognosis. Recognition their different clinical characteristics and treatment effect between bilateral and unilateral SSNHL can help in counseling and managing the patients and correctly evaluate the prognosis.

Clinical investigation of different routes of administration of dexamethasone on sudden deafness / 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志

OBJECTIVE@#To investigate the therapeutic effects of conventional treatment with different routes of administration of dexamethasone on sudden deafness.@*METHOD@#Eighty-four patients with sudden deafness were included in this prospective randomized study. Twenty one patients (group 1) were treated with taking dexamethasone orally combined with conventional methods. Another 21 patients (group 2) were treated with intravenous dexamethasone injection combined with conventional methods. Group 3 (21 patients) were treated with intratympanic dexamethasone injection by the way of external ear combined with conventional methods. The other 21 patients (group 4) were treated with intratympanic dexamethasone injection by the way of pharyngotympanic tube combined with conventional methods. The hearing gains at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 kHz and the mean values were compared among four groups.@*RESULTS@#The average hearing gains of 1, 2, 3 and 4 group was 21.3 dB, 27.5 dB, 43.2 dB and 48.1 dB respectively. Group 3 and group 4 had statistical difference compared with group 1 and group 2 in the average hearing gains. There was no obviously statistical difference between group 1 and group 2 and between group 3 and group 4. In patients with PTA 0.05) among four groups. However, in patients with PTA > 70 dB, there was statistical difference between group 1, 2 and group 3, 4 (P 0.05) and between group 3 and group 4 (P > 0.05).@*CONCLUSION@#The conventional drug treatment with taking dexamethasone orally or intravenous dexamethasone injection had no obvious effect on sudden deafness with PTA > 70 dB, but the conventional drug treatment with intratympanic dexamethasone injection is a useful treatment for sudden deafness. Comparison with whole body administration, intratympanic dexamethasone injection is more convenient to use in clinic, and with less prohibitions and complications. Patients with PTA > 70 dB should take intratympanic dexamethasone injection in early days.

To investigate the relation of sudden deafness with hearing loss level and auditory threshold / 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志

OBJECTIVE@#To investigate the relation of sudden deafness with hearing loss level and auditory threshold.@*METHOD@#A retrospective analysis was performed in 92 cases(97 years) of sudden deafness patients.@*RESULT@#In this group,the best hearing loss prognosis was the ascend type and the back type the total effective rate was both 100.0%. The second was the slow descend type. The total effective rate of this type was 70.0% (7/10). the total effective rate of full deaf is 66.7% (14/21), the sudden descend type is poor, the effective rate was 50% (4/8). although the full deaf groups total effective rate was high than sudden descend type, without one ear completely recovering, and only one ear from sudden descend type was completely cured. After treatment, there were 6 ears of fall deaf in full deaf group. There was one case rised 65 dBHL and one case rised 50 dBHL from the 21 cases full deaf sufferer. In this deaf level group, the light level and the middle level was one ear respectively. Although the total effective rate of this group was the highest, all the cases were not completely recovered. After treatment, the hearing rise 17 dBHL and 19 dBHL respectively. After chi2 text (chi2 = 1.459, P > 0.05), the total effective rate of the more heavier, heavy, and the heaviest to full deaf was no significant difference but after chi2 text (chi2 = 10.09, P < 0.01), the full recover rate was significant difference. The more heavier level group's full recover rate was the highest 38.5% (10/26).the second was heavy level group ,the full recover rate is 33.3% (12/36), the worst level to full deaf group was the lowest: 6.0% (2/33).@*CONCLUSION@#It was considered that the deafness level was no obvious relation to the total effective rate, but there was significant difference in fully recover rate. The different auditory threshold figure of the sudden deafness was closely related to the hearings prognosis.