Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:39:14.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long-term follow up of sudden sensorineural hearing loss patients treated with intratympanic steroids: audiological and quality of life evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2014

I Dallan ,
S Fortunato ,
A P Casani ,
E Bernardini ,
S Sellari-Franceschini ,
S Berrettini  and
A Nacci
I Dallan
Affiliation:
First ENT Unit, University of Pisa, Italy
S Fortunato*
Affiliation:
First ENT Unit, University of Pisa, Italy
A P Casani
Affiliation:
First ENT Unit, University of Pisa, Italy
E Bernardini
Affiliation:
First ENT Unit, University of Pisa, Italy
S Sellari-Franceschini
Affiliation:
First ENT Unit, University of Pisa, Italy
S Berrettini
Affiliation:
ENT Audiology Phoniatry Unit, Department of Neuroscience, University of Pisa, Italy
A Nacci
Affiliation:
ENT Audiology Phoniatry Unit, Department of Neuroscience, University of Pisa, Italy
*
Address for correspondence: Dr S Fortunato, First ENT Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Via Paradisa, 3, 56126 Pisa, Italy Fax: +39 (0)50 997517 E-mail: susanna.fortunato@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the long-term stability of intratympanic steroids and investigate the ‘real’ impact of sudden sensorineural hearing loss on patients.

Method:

A total of 14 patients treated with intratympanic steroids were evaluated by audiometric and vestibular examinations. The modified Glasgow Benefit Inventory was used to evaluate quality of life changes after intratympanic steroid treatment.

Results:

There was no significant difference between pure tone average post-intratympanic steroids and at follow up. The general Glasgow Benefit Inventory score was not significantly associated with the presence of tinnitus or dizziness, or with patient age. The change in pure tone average after intratympanic steroid treatment did not correlate with social or physical scores, but correlated strongly with the general Glasgow Benefit Inventory score (p = 0.0023). Intratympanic steroid administration led to a stable improvement in hearing. Quality of life assessment showed that patients can feel satisfaction regardless of the hearing outcome. Patients who regained a social hearing level expressed greater satisfaction than patients without serviceable hearing. Overall, quality of life improvement was not related to hearing improvement.

Conclusion:

Sudden sensorineural hearing loss is devastating. Considering the audiological effects alone ignores the ‘human’ perspective. Audiological success can correlate with poor quality of life outcome.

Keywords

Hearing Loss, SuddenQuality of LifeQuestionnaireHearing Loss
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 128 , Issue 8 , August 2014 , pp. 669 - 673
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Hughes, GB, Freedman, MA, Haberkamp, TJ, Guay, ME. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1996;29:393–405Google Scholar
2Mattox, DE, Simmons, FB. Natural history of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1977;86:463–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Rauch, SD, Halpin, CF, Antonelli, PJ, Babu, S, Carey, JP, Gantz, BJ et al. Oral vs intratympanic corticosteroid therapy for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a randomized trial. JAMA 2011;305:2071–9Google Scholar
4Robinson, K, Gatehouse, S, Browning, GG. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006;105:415–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Kyrodimos, E, Aidonis, I, Skalimis, A, Sismanis, A. Use of Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) in Meniere's disease managed with intratympanic dexamethasone perfusion: quality of life assessment. Auris Nasus Larynx 2011;38:172–7Google Scholar
6Stachler, RJ, Chandrasekhar, SS, Archer, SM, Rosenfeld, RM, Schwartz, SR, Barrs, DM et al. Clinical practice guideline: sudden hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;146(suppl3):S1–35Google Scholar
7Carlosson, PI, Hall, M, Lind, KJ, Danermark, B. Quality of life, psychosocial consequences, and audiological rehabilitation after sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2011;50:139–44Google Scholar
8Yeo, SW, Lee, DH, Jun, BC, Park, SY, Park, YS. Hearing outcome of sudden sensorineural hearing loss: long-term follow up. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136:221–4Google Scholar
9Vrabec, JT. Effectiveness of intratympanic dexamethasone injection in sudden deafness patients as salvage treatment. Laryngoscope 2005;115:378CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Kallinen, J, Laurikainen, E, Bergroth, L, Grenman, R. A follow up study of patients suffering from sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngol 2001;121:818–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Furuhashi, A, Matzuda, K, Asahi, K, Nakashima, T. Sudden deafness: long-term follow up and recurrences. Clin Otolaryngol 2002;27:458–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Lin, HC, Chao, PZ, Lee, HC. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss increases the risk of stroke: a 5-year follow-up study. Stroke 2008;39:2744–8Google Scholar