-
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2024: Ménière's disease (MD) is a disease of the inner ear, presenting with episodes of vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus.The aim of this study is to examine the role of... (Review)
Review
: Ménière's disease (MD) is a disease of the inner ear, presenting with episodes of vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus.The aim of this study is to examine the role of multifrequency tympanometry (MFT) in the diagnosis of MD. A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library was performed, aligned with the PRISMA guidelines. Only studies that directly compare ears affected by Ménière's disease with unaffected or control ears were included. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed. Seven prospective case-control studies reported a total of 899 ears, 282 of which were affected by Ménière's disease (affected ears-AE), 197 unaffected ears in patients with MD (UE), and 420 control ears (CE) in healthy controls. No statistically significant differences between the groups were observed regarding resonant frequency (RF). The pure tone audiometry average of the lower frequencies (PTA basic) was significantly greater in affected ears when compared with unaffected ears. The conductance tympanogram at 2 kHz revealed a statistically significantly greater G width of 2 kHz in the affected ears when compared to both unaffected and control ears, while control ears had a statistically significant lesser G width of 2 kHz compared to both the other two groups. MFT, and specifically G width at 2 kHz, could be an important tool in the diagnosis of MD.
PubMed: 38592318
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13051476 -
International Journal of Chronic... 2019COPD is an irreversible or persistent airflow obstruction, which affects up to 600 million people globally. The primary purpose of this systematic review was to explore... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
COPD is an irreversible or persistent airflow obstruction, which affects up to 600 million people globally. The primary purpose of this systematic review was to explore the COPD-based alteration in the auditory system function by conducting a quantitative analysis of presently published data.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We systematically searched seven diverse electronic databases and manual searching of references to identify relevant studies. Data from the selected studies were rated by two investigators independently in a blinded fashion. Meta-analysis was done on pooled data using Cochrane's Review Manager 5.3.
RESULTS
Sixteen articles received suitable scores and were thus included for further processes. Hearing loss (HL) was defined as a change in pure tone audiometry (PTA) thresholds, auditory brainstem response (ABR), and auditory P300 parameters. ABR wave was significantly elongated in patients with COPD than in controls (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.27, 95% CI: 0.05-0.48, =0.02). PTA was significantly higher in patients with COPD when compared with controls (SMD=1.76, 95% CI: 0.43-3.08, =0.0004). We found that patients with COPD had a significantly higher latency than controls (SMD=1.30, 95% CI: 0.79-1.80, =0.0001).
CONCLUSION
COPD patients had considerably greater incidence of HL when compared with controls. Interestingly, although the mean PTA thresholds at every frequency for COPD patients were higher than those for controls, these values were still in the slight to mild HL ranges. Prolonged ABR wave latencies in the COPD patients suggest retro-cochlear involvement. Thus, COPD most frequently clusters with HL, but it is worth noting that alteration in hearing is not always recognized by medical experts as a frequent comorbidity associated with COPD.
Topics: Audiometry, Pure-Tone; Auditory Pathways; Auditory Threshold; Event-Related Potentials, P300; Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem; Hearing; Hearing Disorders; Humans; Incidence; Lung; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Reaction Time; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30643401
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S182730 -
Current practice, accuracy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the school entry hearing screen.Health Technology Assessment... Aug 2007To describe and analyse in detail current practice of school entry hearing screening (SES) in the UK. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To describe and analyse in detail current practice of school entry hearing screening (SES) in the UK.
DATA SOURCES
Main electronic databases were searched up to May 2005.
REVIEW METHODS
A national postal questionnaire survey was addressed to all leads for SES in the UK, considering current practice in terms of implementation, protocols, target population and performance data. Primary data from cohort studies in one area of London were examined. A systematic review of alternative SES tests, test performance and impact on outcomes was carried out. Finally, a review of published studies on costs, plus economic modelling of current and alternative programmes was prepared.
RESULTS
The survey suggested that SES is used in most of England, Wales and Scotland; just over 10% of respondents have abandoned the screen; others are awaiting national guidance. Coverage of SES is variable, but is often over 90% for children in state schools. Referral rates are variable, with a median of about 8%. The test used for the screen is the pure tone sweep test but with wide variation in implementation, with differing frequencies, pass criteria and retest protocols; written examples of protocols were often poor and ambiguous. There is no national approach to data collection, audit and quality assurance, and there are variable approaches at local level. The screen is performed in less than ideal test conditions and resources are often limited, which has an impact on the quality of the screen. The primary cohort studies show that the prevalence of permanent childhood hearing loss continues to increase through infancy. Of the 3.47 in 1000 children with a permanent hearing loss at school screen age, 1.89 in 1000 required identification after the newborn screen. Newborn hearing screening is likely to reduce significantly the yield of SES for permanent bilateral and unilateral hearing impairments; yield had fallen from about 1.11 in 1000 before newborn screening to about 0.34 in 1000 for cohorts that had had newborn screening, of which only 0.07 in 1000 were unilateral impairments. Just under 20% of permanent moderate or greater bilateral, mild bilateral and unilateral impairments, known to services as 6-year-olds or older, remained to be identified around the time of school entry. No good-quality published comparative trials of alternative screens or tests for SES were identified and studies concerned with the relative accuracy of alternative tests are difficult to compare and often flawed by differing referral criteria and case definitions; with full pure tone audiometry as the reference test, the pure tone sweep test appears to have high sensitivity and high specificity for minimal, mild and greater hearing impairments, better than alternative tests for which evidence was identified. There is insufficient evidence regarding possible harm of the screen. There were no published studies identified that examined the possible effects of SES on longer term outcomes. No good-quality published economic evaluations of SES were identified and a universal SES based on pure tone sweep tests was associated with higher costs and slightly higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no screen and other screen alternatives; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for such a screen is around 2500 pounds per QALY gained; the range of expected costs, QALYs and net benefits was broad, indicating a considerable degree of uncertainty. Targeted screening could be more cost-effective than universal school entry screening; however, the lack of primary data and the wide limits for variables in the modelling mean that any conclusions must be considered indicative and exploratory only. A national screening programme for permanent hearing impairment at school entry meets all but three of the criteria for a screening programme, but at least six criteria are not met for screening for temporary hearing impairment.
CONCLUSIONS
The lack of good-quality evidence in this area remains a serious problem. Services should improve quality and audit screen performance for identification of previously unknown permanent hearing impairment, pending evidence-based policy decisions based on the research recommendations. Further research is needed into a number of important areas including the evaluation of an agreed national protocol for services delivering SES to make future studies and audits of screen performance more directly comparable.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Evidence-Based Medicine; Hearing Disorders; Hearing Tests; Humans; Mass Screening; Prevalence; School Admission Criteria; Schools; State Medicine; Surveys and Questionnaires; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom
PubMed: 17683682
DOI: 10.3310/hta11320 -
Scandinavian Journal of Work,... Nov 2018Objectives The objective of this systematic review was to compare otoacoustic emissions (OAE) with audiometry in their effectiveness to monitor effects of long-term...
Objectives The objective of this systematic review was to compare otoacoustic emissions (OAE) with audiometry in their effectiveness to monitor effects of long-term noise exposure on hearing. Methods We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase and the non-MEDLINE subset of PubMed up to March 2016 to identify longitudinal studies on effects of noise exposure on hearing as determined by both audiometry and OAE. Results This review comprised 13 articles, with 30-350 subjects in the longitudinal analysis. A meta-analysis could not be performed because the studies were very heterogeneous in terms of measurement paradigms, follow-up time, age of included subjects, inclusion of data points, outcome parameters and method of analysis. Overall there seemed to be small changes in both audiometry and OAE over time. Individual shifts were detected by both methods but a congruent pattern could not be observed. Some studies found that initial abnormal or low-level emissions might predict future hearing loss but at the cost of low specificity due to a high number of false positives. Other studies could not find such predictive value. Conclusions The reported heterogeneity in the studies calls for more uniformity in including, reporting and analyzing longitudinal data for audiometry and OAE. For the overall results, both methods showed small changes from baseline towards a deterioration in hearing. OAE could not reliably detect threshold shifts at individual level. With respect to the predictive value of OAE, the evidence was not conclusive and studies were not in agreement. The reported predictors had low specificity.
Topics: Audiometry; Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced; Humans; Noise; Otoacoustic Emissions, Spontaneous
PubMed: 29542804
DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.3725 -
International Journal of Audiology Mar 2014To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.
DESIGN
We searched biomedical databases up to 25 January 2012 for randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies and interrupted time-series of hearing loss prevention among workers exposed to noise.
STUDY SAMPLE
We included 19 studies with 82 794 participants evaluating effects of hearing loss prevention programs (HLPP). The overall quality of studies was low to very low, as rated using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
One study of stricter legislation showed a favorable effect on noise levels. Three studies, of which two RCTs, did not find an effect of a HLPP. Four studies showed that better use of hearing protection devices in HLPPs decreased the risk of hearing loss. In four other studies, workers in a HLPP still had a 0.5 dB greater hearing loss at 4 kHz (95% CI - 0.5 to 1.7) than non-exposed workers. In two similar studies there was a substantial risk of hearing loss in spite of a HLPP.
CONCLUSIONS
Stricter enforcement of legislation and better implementation of HLPPs can reduce noise levels in workplaces. Better evaluations of technical interventions and long-term effects are needed.
Topics: Audiometry; Ear Protective Devices; Environmental Monitoring; Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced; Humans; Noise; Occupational Exposure; Occupational Health; Preventive Health Services; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 24564697
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2013.857436 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jul 2011A bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) consists of a permanent titanium fixture, which is surgically implanted into the skull bone behind the ear, and a small detachable... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A bone-anchored hearing aid (BAHA) consists of a permanent titanium fixture, which is surgically implanted into the skull bone behind the ear, and a small detachable sound processor that clips onto the fixture. BAHAs are suitable for people with conductive or mixed hearing loss who cannot benefit fully from conventional hearing aids.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BAHAs for people who are bilaterally deaf.
DATA SOURCES
Nineteen electronic resources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library (inception to November 2009). Additional studies were sought from reference lists and clinical experts.
REVIEW METHODS
Inclusion criteria were applied by two reviewers independently. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Prospective studies of adults or children with bilateral hearing loss were eligible. Comparisons were BAHAs versus conventional hearing aids [air conduction hearing aid (ACHA) or bone conduction hearing aid (BCHA)], unaided hearing and ear surgery; and unilateral versus bilateral BAHAs. Outcomes included hearing measures, validated measures of quality of life (QoL), adverse events and measures of cost-effectiveness. For the review of cost-effectiveness, full economic evaluations were eligible.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included (seven cohort pre-post studies and five cross-sectional 'audiological comparison' studies). No prospective studies comparing BAHAs with ear surgery were identified. Overall quality was rated as weak for all included studies and meta-analysis was not possible due to differences in outcome measures and patient populations. There appeared to be some audiological benefits of BAHAs compared with BCHAs and improvements in speech understanding in noise compared with ACHAs; however, ACHAs may produce better audiological results for other outcomes. The limited evidence reduces certainty. Hearing is improved with BAHAs compared with unaided hearing. Improvements in QoL with BAHAs were identified by a hearing-specific instrument but not generic QoL measures. Studies comparing unilateral with bilateral BAHAs suggested benefits of bilateral BAHAs in many, but not all, situations. Prospective case series reported between 6.1% and 19.4% loss of implants. Most participants experienced no or minor skin reactions. A decision analytic model was developed. Costs and benefits of unilateral BAHAs were estimated over a 10-year time horizon, applying discount rates of 3.5%. The incremental cost per user receiving BAHA, compared with BCHA, was £ 16,409 for children and £ 13,449 for adults. In an exploratory analysis the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was between £ 55,642 and £ 119,367 for children and between £ 46,628 and £ 100,029 for adults for BAHAs compared with BCHA, depending on the assumed QoL gain and proportion of each modelled cohort using their hearing aid for ≥ 8 or more hours per day. Deterministic sensitivity analysis suggested that the results were highly sensitive to the assumed proportion of people using BCHA for ≥ 8 hours per day, with very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values (£ 500,000-1,200,000 per QALY gained) associated with a high proportion of people using BCHA. More acceptable values (£ 15,000-37,000 per QALY gained) were associated with a low proportion of people using BCHA for ≥ 8 hours per day (compared with BAHA).
LIMITATIONS
The economic evaluation presented in this report is severely limited by a lack of robust evidence on the outcome of hearing aid provision. This has lead to a more restricted analysis than was originally anticipated (limited to a comparison of BAHA and BCHA). In the absence of useable QoL data, the cost-effectiveness analysis is based on potential utility gains from hearing, that been inferred using a QoL instrument rather than measures reported by hearing aid users themselves. As a result the analysis is regarded as exploratory and the reported results should be interpreted with caution.
CONCLUSIONS
Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that BAHAs are unlikely to be a cost-effective option where the benefits (in terms of hearing gain and probability of using of alternative aids) are similar for BAHAs and their comparators. The greater the benefit from aided hearing and the greater the difference in the proportion of people using the hearing aid for ≥ 8 hours per day, the more likely BAHAs are to be a cost-effective option. The inclusion of other dimensions of QoL may also increase the likelihood of BAHAs being a cost-effective option. A national audit of BAHAs is needed to provide clarity on the many areas of uncertainty surrounding BAHAs. Further research into the non-audiological benefits of BAHAs, including QoL, is required.
Topics: Age Factors; Audiometry; Bone Conduction; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Decision Making; Hearing Aids; Hearing Loss, Bilateral; Hearing Loss, Conductive; Humans; Models, Economic; Prevalence; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Suture Anchors; United Kingdom
PubMed: 21729632
DOI: 10.3310/hta15260 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2020(1) Objectives: This study reviews the use of electrocochleography (ECoG) as a tool for assessing the response of the peripheral auditory system and monitoring hearing...
(1) Objectives: This study reviews the use of electrocochleography (ECoG) as a tool for assessing the response of the peripheral auditory system and monitoring hearing preservation in the growing population of cochlear implant (CI) users with preserved hearing in the implanted ear. (2) Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed and CINAHL databases up to August 2020 to locate articles related to the ECoG measured during or after the cochlear implant (CI) surgery for monitoring purposes. Non-English articles, animal studies, literature reviews and editorials, case reports, and conference papers were excluded. The quality of studies was evaluated using the National Institute of Health (NIH) "Study Quality Assessment Tool for Case Series Studies". (3) Results: A total 30 articles were included for the systematic review. A total of 21 articles were intraoperative ECoG studies, while seven articles were postoperative studies. Two studies were conducted ECoG both during and after the surgery. Intraoperative ECoG studies focused on monitoring changes in ECoG response amplitudes during and/or after electrode insertion and predicting the scalar location of the electrode array. Postoperative ECoG studies focused on using the ECoG measurements to estimate behavioral audiometric thresholds and monitor pathophysiological changes related to delayed onset hearing loss postimplant. (4) Conclusions: ECoG is feasible to provide real-time feedback intraoperatively and has a potential clinical value to monitor the status of hearing preservation postoperatively in this CI population with residual acoustic hearing.
Topics: Acoustic Stimulation; Acoustics; Audiometry, Evoked Response; Cochlear Implantation; Cochlear Implants; Correction of Hearing Impairment; Hearing; Humans; Pilot Projects
PubMed: 32993065
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17197043 -
Ontario Health Technology Assessment... 2020Single-sided deafness refers to profound sensorineural hearing loss or non-functional hearing in one ear, with normal or near-normal hearing in the other ear. Its...
BACKGROUND
Single-sided deafness refers to profound sensorineural hearing loss or non-functional hearing in one ear, with normal or near-normal hearing in the other ear. Its hallmark is the inability to localize sound and hear in noisy environments. Conductive hearing loss occurs when there is a mechanical problem with the conduction of sound vibrations. Mixed hearing loss is a combination of sensorineural and conductive hearing loss. Conductive and mixed hearing loss, which frequently affect both ears, create additional challenges in learning, employment, and quality of life. Cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants may offer objective and subjective benefits of hearing for people with these conditions who are deemed inappropriate candidates for standard hearing aids and do not meet the current indication (i.e., bilateral deafness) for publicly funded cochlear implants in Canada.
METHODS
We conducted a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values related to implantable devices for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. We performed a systematic literature search for systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness studies of cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants, compared to no interventions, for these conditions in adults and children. We conducted cost-utility analyses and budget impact analyses from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health to examine the impact of publicly funding both types of hearing implants for the defined populations. We also interviewed 22 patients and parents of children about their experience with hearing loss and hearing implants.
RESULTS
We included 20 publications in the clinical evidence review. For adults and children with single-sided deafness, cochlear implantation when compared with no treatment improves speech perception in noise (% correct responses: 43% vs. 15%, < .01; GRADE: Moderate), sound localization (localization error: 14° vs. 41°, < .01; GRADE: Moderate), tinnitus (Visual Analog Scale, loudness: 3.5 vs. 8.5, < .01; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life (Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale, speech: 5.8 vs. 2.6, = .01; spatial: 5.7 vs. 2.3, < .01; GRADE: Moderate); for children, speech and language development also improve (GRADE: Moderate). For those with single-sided deafness in whom cochlear implantation is contraindicated, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention provide clinically important functional gains in hearing thresholds (36-41 dB improvement in pure tone audiometry and 38-56 dB improvement in speech reception threshold, < .05; GRADE: Moderate) and improve speech perception in noise (signal-to-noise ratio -2.0 vs. 0.6, < .05 for active percutaneous devices; signal-to-noise ratio improved by 1.3-2.5 dB, < .05 for active transcutaneous devices; GRADE: Moderate) and hearing-specific quality of life (Abbreviated Profile for Hearing Aid Benefit, ease of communication: 12%-53% vs. 24%-59%; background noise: 18%-48% vs. 33%-79%; listening in reverberant condition: 26%-55% vs. 41%-65%, < .05 [active percutaneous devices]; ease of communication: 7% vs. 20%; background noise: 46% vs. 69%; listening in reverberant condition: 27% vs. 43%; < .05 [active transcutaneous devices]; Children's Home Inventory for Listening Difficulties score 7.3 vs. 3.4; < .05 [passive transcutaneous devices]; GRADE: Moderate). For those with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention improve hearing thresholds (improved 19-45 dB [active percutaneous devices], improved 24-37 dB [active transcutaneous devices], improved 31 dB [passive transcutaneous devices], and improved 21-49 dB [active transcutaneous middle-ear implants]; GRADE: Moderate), speech perception (% correct: 77%-93% vs. < 25%; < .05 [active transcutaneous devices], % speech recognition: 55%-98% vs. 0-72%; < .05 [active transcutaneous middle-ear implants]; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life and subjective benefits of hearing (GRADE: Moderate).In the cost-utility analyses, cochlear implants for adults and children with single-sided deafness provided greater health gains for an incremental cost, compared with no intervention. On average, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was between $17,783 and $18,148 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, 70% of the simulations were considered cost-effective. For the same population, bone-conduction implants were not likely to be cost-effective compared with no intervention (ICER: $402,899-$408,350/QALY). Only 38% of simulations were considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY. For adults and children with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention (ICER: $74,155-$87,580/QALY). However, there was considerable uncertainty in the results. At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, only 50% to 55% of simulations were cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to changes in health-related utilities (measured using generic quality-of-life tools), highlighting the limitations of currently published data (i.e., small sample sizes and short follow-up).For people with single-sided deafness, publicly funding cochlear implants in Ontario would result in an estimated additional cost of $2.8 million to $3.6 million in total over the next 5 years, and an additional $0.8 million would be required for bone-conduction implants for this population. For people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, publicly funding bone-conduction implants would cost an estimated additional $3.1 million to $3.3 million in total over the next 5 years.In interviews, people with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss reported that standard hearing aids did not meet their expectations; therefore, they chose to undergo surgery for an implantable device. Most participants with experience of a cochlear implant or bone-conduction implant spoke positively about being able to hear better and enjoy a better quality of life. People with a cochlear implant reported additional benefits: binaural hearing, better sound localization, and better hearing in noisy areas. Cost and access were barriers to receiving an implantable device.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on evidence of moderate quality, cochlear implantation and bone-conduction implants improve functional and patient-important outcomes in adults and children with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. Qualitative results of interviews with patients are consistent with the findings of the systematic reviews we examined.Among people with single-sided deafness, cochlear implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention, but bone-conduction implants are unlikely to be. Among people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention. Results and uncertainty are mainly driven by changes in health utilities associated with having a hearing implant. Hence, further research on utility values in this population is warranted with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.The 5-year cost of publicly funding both types of hearing implant for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss in Ontario is estimated to be $6.7 million to $7.8 million.
Topics: Adult; Child; Cochlear Implantation; Deafness; Female; Hearing Loss; Hearing Loss, Mixed Conductive-Sensorineural; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Male; Quality of Life; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Speech Perception; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 32194878
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of International Advanced... Apr 2018The goal of the present study was to describe a case of perilymphatic fistula (PLF) of the round window (RW) that occurred after sneezing, along with a review of the...
The goal of the present study was to describe a case of perilymphatic fistula (PLF) of the round window (RW) that occurred after sneezing, along with a review of the literature. We report a case of PLF of RW, which was provoked by sneezing, and its consequent medical and surgical treatments. With respect to the review of the literature, articles were initially selected based on their titles or abstracts, followed by methodological evaluation. The patient underwent an explorative tympanotomy (ET) with packaging of RW with the pericondrium, following which the patient's complaints regarding vertigo and imbalance disappeared, but the severe sensorineural hearing loss persisted. For the literature review, five references were selected. These studies showed a great variety in the clinical presentation and healing of symptoms. Sneezing represents a rare but well-recognized cause of PLF, as reported in our case. The correct selection of patients who should undergo ET and an early surgical repair of PLF are mandatory for better outcomes, especially in case of hearing.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Audiometry, Pure-Tone; Cochlear Aqueduct; Female; Fistula; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Middle Ear Ventilation; Otoscopy; Round Window, Ear; Sneezing; Vertigo; Vestibular Diseases; Young Adult
PubMed: 29764784
DOI: 10.5152/iao.2018.4336 -
The Journal of International Advanced... Apr 2019This study aimed to assess the clinical benefit of device therapy on controlling the symptoms of Meniere's disease (MD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to assess the clinical benefit of device therapy on controlling the symptoms of Meniere's disease (MD).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Internet, and Wanfang Data before January 13, 2018. We selected randomized controlled clinical trials, case-controlled studies, and cohort studies that dealt with outcomes of device therapy for the treatment of MD.
RESULTS
Sixteen trials met our inclusion criteria. The use of device therapy resulted in improved vertigo control, which was described as a reduction in the number of vertigo days by month (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 3.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.00-4.31), in the number of vertigo episodes by month (WMD: 7.37, 95% CI: 2.40-12.35), and in the vertigo visual analog score (WMD: 41.51, 95% CI: 34.68-48.34). In addition, the overall complete vertigo control (class A) rate was 50% (95% CI: 37%-64%). The device therapy also reduced the number of sick days by month (WMD: 4.56, 95% CI: 2.15-6.97), and the functional level improved (WMD: 2.66, 95% CI: 2.15-3.17). The electrocochleographic parameters decreased. The device therapy proved beneficial for hearing changes (WMD: 3.19, 95% CI: 0.66-5.71). No publication bias was found in the funnel plot and the results of Egger's test.
CONCLUSION
This study showed that the device therapy might reduce vertigo attacks and sick days in patients with MD. Additionally, the function level and hearing level may improve after the device therapy. In addition, the decrease in electrocochleographic parameters showed that inner ear electrophysiology improved after device therapy.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Audiometry, Evoked Response; Case-Control Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Ear, Inner; Female; Humans; Male; Meniere Disease; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sick Leave; Transtympanic Micropressure Treatment; Vertigo; Visual Analog Scale
PubMed: 31058601
DOI: 10.5152/iao.2019.5937