RESUMO
The cross sectional study was conducted in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center (UKMMC), Malaysia from August 2012 to December 2013. All patients implanted with in UKMMC from December 2001 until December 2012 was included. Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) questionnaires and UKMMC questionnaires were used as part of the assessment tool. The GBI is a scoring which measures the change in health status produced by surgical interventions. UKMMC questionnaires was invented by our department to assess questions related to social and life style of patients and also the cosmetic perspective Baha implant and other daily related activities. The audiological assessment was assessed using hearing aid gain threshold. Complication with regards to skin reaction was graded using Holger Skin Classification. A total of 40 patients underwent Baha implant were recruited but only 35 patients fulfilled the criteria and included in this study for analysis. Age of patients ranged from 5 year old to 38 year old, with median of 13 years old. There were 22 patients (62.8%) were male and 13 patients (37.1%) were females. Almost all cases were canal atresia except one adult patient was a case of bilateral chronic discharging ear with chronic irritation with ear mould. Majority of patients 21 (60%) have hearing level of moderate to severe hearing loss (40-89 dB) and 14 patients (40%) have mild to moderate hearing loss (20-39 dB). The level of hearing was retested post operatively. All of the patients have improvement in their aided hearing with the range of 10-25 dBL which is statistically significant at p value of <0.05. The GBI was scored positively in all subscales. Majority of patients (91.4%) used BAHA more than 4 h per day and 88.6% agreed that BAHA is cosmetically acceptable. All patients experienced some form of skin irritation (Holger grade 1-2) however only 20% required surgical intervention. All our patients have range of 10-25 dB improvement of their aided hearing which is statistically significant at p value of <0.05. BAHA has been proven to show significant benefit in audiological improvement and quality of life.
RESUMO
Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis denotes both nasal and ocular manifestation of allergy, which may be solely treated with intranasal steroid. This study compares the efficacy of mometasone furoate nasal spray (NS) and fluticasone furoate NS in treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The secondary objective is to study the severity of baseline ocular symptoms in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Seventy-eight patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were assessed subjectively and objectively using twice-daily symptom scores for nasal (reflective total nasal symptom score [rTNSS] and instantaneous TNSS [iTNSS]) and ocular (reflective total ocular symptom score [rTOSS] and instantaneous TOSS [iTOSS]) symptoms, rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life questionnaires (RQOLQs), and acoustic rhinometry. All measurements were taken at baseline and at 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. Sixty-three patients who were randomized into the mometasone furoate group (n = 36) and the fluticasone furoate group (n = 27) completed the study. Seventy-six percent of patients had mild ocular symptoms, 20.5% had moderate symptoms, and only 2.6% had severe symptoms at baseline based on the iTOSS; 65.1% had mild nasal symptoms and 3% had severe nasal symptoms. There was significant reduction in the symptom scores after 1 week (p < 0.05). Both groups had significant improvement in RQOLQ scores after 1 month, which further improved at 2 months (p < 0.05). The nasal dimensions also improved in both groups (p < 0.05) but there was no statistically significant difference between groups. Both mometasone furoate and fluticasone furoate are effective as single-modality treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The majority of patients manifest mild ocular symptoms that may be solely treated with intranasal steroids.
