ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial was to compare the therapeutic efficacy of systemic versus intratympanic versus combined administration of steroids in the treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. METHODS: 102 patients with an up to 14 days history of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss were randomized to 1 of 3 arms and followed prospectively. Group A (35 patients) received prednisolone intravenously followed by methylprednisolone orally, whereas Group B (34 patients) were administered intratympanic methylprednisolone. Patients in Group C (33 patients) were administered the combination of the above-mentioned treatment modalities. The patients were followed-up with pure tone audiograms on days 1 (initiation of treatment), 3, 5, 10, 30 and 90. RESULTS: The final mean hearing gain was 29.0 dB HL for Group A, 27.0 dB HL for Group B and 29.8 dB HL for Group C. The differences between the three groups were not statistically significant. When hearing improvement was assessed according to Siegel's criteria, no statistically significant difference was recorded either. Furthermore, patients younger than 60 years old achieved significantly better hearing outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated that systemic, intratympanic and combined steroid administration have similar results in the primary treatment of idiopathic sudden hearing loss. Younger patients are more likely to achieve better hearing outcomes.
Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/administration & dosage , Hearing Loss, Sensorineural/drug therapy , Hearing Loss, Sudden/drug therapy , Prednisolone/administration & dosage , Administration, Oral , Administration, Topical , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Injections, Intravenous , Male , Methylprednisolone/administration & dosage , Methylprednisolone/therapeutic use , Middle Aged , Prednisolone/therapeutic use , Prospective Studies , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome , Tympanic Membrane , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to ascertain the most reliable objective measurement for the assessment of nasal patency by investigating the relationship between peak nasal inspiratory flow, peak oral inspiratory flow, and the nasal patency index in relation to the patient's subjective perception regarding nasal obstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: This study included 131 volunteers of both genders, aged 18 years or older, with or without nasal symptoms, who were able to give informed consent, completed the study protocol, and could speak and write Dutch fluently. Peak nasal inspiratory flow and peak oral inspiratory flow were performed and nasal patency index was computed. The results were evaluated and compared with the subjective perception of nasal passage, using the validated Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale and visual analog scale for nasal passage. RESULTS: Our study showed that peak nasal inspiratory flow, nasal patency index and nasal patency visual analog scale correlate with the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale in contrast to peak oral inspiratory flow. Peak nasal inspiratory flow and nasal patency index also showed significant association with the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation scale after adjustment for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Peak nasal inspiratory flow is the most reliable method for the assessment of nasal patency. It is quick, inexpensive, and easy to perform, and correlates significantly with the subjective feeling of nasal obstruction. There is no clinical need to measure peak oral inspiratory flow or to calculate the nasal patency index in the evaluation of nasal patency. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4
