Choo Oak-Sung, Yang Suk Min, Park Hun Yi, Lee Jong Bin, Jang Jeong Hun, Choi Seong Jun, Choung Yun-Hoon
Department of Otolaryngology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, College of Medicine, Konyang University and Myunggok Medical Research Center, Daejon, Republic of Korea.
Laryngoscope. 2017 Aug;127(8):1878-1884. doi: 10.1002/lary.26382. Epub 2016 Nov 7.
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).
Prospective, randomized controlled study.
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.
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).
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.
1b. Laryngoscope, 127:1878-1884, 2017.
目的/假设:我们比较了急性低频和高频听力损失(分别为LF和HF)患者的临床特征,以及三种不同治疗方案(全身用类固醇、鼓室内类固醇注射和联合治疗)的疗效。
前瞻性随机对照研究。
总共111例被诊断为LF或HF的患者在门诊接受治疗。根据治疗方法,每组随机分为三个相等的亚组:口服类固醇、鼓室内注射地塞米松(IT)和联合治疗。通过比较治疗前后的纯音平均值来估计听力增益。根据美国耳鼻咽喉头颈外科学会的《临床实践指南:突发性听力损失》评估恢复率。
在主要症状比较中,耳闷和听力损失分别在LF组和HF组中更常见(分别为P = 0.033和P = 0.001)。两组之间的听力恢复率有显著差异(即LF组为74.1%[40/54],HF组为45.6%[26/57];P < 0.001)。口服类固醇治疗在LF组中最有效(P = 0.017)。在HF组中,尽管IT往往最有效(P = 0.390),但所有三种治疗方式都显示出相似的结果。
LF和HF患者在主要症状和治疗反应上存在差异。尽管它们在耳蜗中显示出相似的部分损伤,但LF和HF的病理生理学可能有很大不同。
1b。《喉镜》,2017年,第127卷,第1878 - 1884页。