Recovery Of Sudden Hearing Loss Research Articles

Can quantum medicine encourage recovery of sudden hearing loss?

The article covers causes of sudden hearing loss and routine therapies used to treat such disease. It introduces a new treatment therapy that uses quantum medicine bioresonance apparatus. The case study in this article describes the case of an adult suffering from 90% hearing loss who almost completely recovered after three quantum therapies.

Comparison of Auditory Outcomes between Inpatient- and Outpatient-Based Treatment in Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Objective: The primary treatment for sudden hearing loss is high-dose steroid therapy. In some countries, hospitalization has been taken for granted. Although most countries appear to treat sudden hearing loss on an outpatient basis, some other countries have considered hospitalization as necessary. Only a few studies have been conducted on the effect of hospitalization on hearing outcomes. Therefore, we compared the hearing outcome of inpatient- and outpatient-based treatments to determine whether hospitalization affects the recovery of sudden hearing loss. Methods: We conducted a retrospective case review of patients diagnosed with sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL). In total, 439 patients with SSNHL were enrolled and categorized as either inpatients (group I) or outpatients (group O). Pure-tone audiometry was initially performed before the treatment and 3 months post-treatment. “Recovery” was defined as a hearing gain of 15 dB HL and a final hearing of better than 25 dB. “No recovery” was defined as an improvement of hearing gain of <15 dB 3 months after treatment. To exclude the effect of the level of pretreatment hearing loss, we divided the patients into three subgroups based on their hearing level: <40 dB, 40–70 dB, and >70 dB. To assess the effect of the treatment modality, the patients were divided into three treatment subgroups: systemic steroids (SS), intratympanic steroids (ITS), and a combination of both (SS and ITS). Results: The pretreatment hearing level was significantly higher in group I (61.5 ± 25.4 dB) than in group O (50.3 ± 23.0 dB; p < 0.05). The hearing gain was significantly higher in group I (33.3 ± 24.4 dB) than in group O (24.0 ± 21.8 dB; p < 0.05). The “Recovery” ratio was significantly higher in group I (70.2%) than in group O (63.1%) (p < 0.05). A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to assess the statistical differences between hospitalization, treatment modalities, and pretreatment subgroups. The inpatient group showed a significant hearing improvement in all SSNHL patients (p < 0.05). There was a significant hearing improvement in the inpatient group with pretreatment hearing <40 and 40–70 dB (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the inpatient and outpatient groups in pretreatment hearing >70 dB (p > 0.05). Conclusions: This retrospective study showed that inpatient treatment for sudden hearing loss is more beneficial for hearing improvement than outpatient treatment. The positive effect of inpatient treatment appears to be significant in patients with a pretreatment hearing level of 70 dB or less.

Correlation study of peripheral blood inflammatory factors in patients with sudden deafness

Objective:The aim of this study is to compare the difference of inflammatory factors in peripheral blood between sudden deafness patients and normal people, and to evaluate the predictive value of inflammatory factors in hearing recovery of sudden deafness patients. Method:Seventy-two inpatients with sudden deafness and 19 healthy persons were included. At the beginning of treatment in our hospital, audiometry was performed and peripheral blood was collected. The levels of IL-1β, IL-6, IL-17α, TGF-β1 and TNF-α in peripheral blood were detected by ELISA. The treatment was intravenous steroid（not applied if patients with contraindication of systemic steroid application）+ intratympanic steroid injection+ microcirculation improvement or neurotrophic therapy+ hyperbaric oxygen. At the end of the treatment, audiometry was performed again. A total of 26 patients were collected to test the levels of inflammatory factors in peripheral blood again at the end of the treatment. Result:The mean levels of inflammatory factors IL-1β, IL-6, IL-17α, TGF-β1 and TNF-α in peripheral blood of patients were （2.66±9.57） pg/ml, （4.71±6.91） pg/ml, （19.33±32.27） pg/ml, （50 018.37±14 660.72） pg/ml, （1.52±2.40） pg/ml, respectively. And the level of these five inflammatory factors in normal persons were （3.61±9.82） pg/ml, （3.58±4.49） pg/ml, （11.64±13.29） pg/ml, （45 199.98±11 956.09） pg/ml，（1.09±1.08） pg/ml respectively. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between these two groups. A total of 45 cases were effective（hearing threshold increased ≥15 dB） and 27 cases were ineffective（hearing threshold increased<15 dB）. There was no significant difference in the levels of inflammatory factors between the two groups. Among 26 patients with blood samples before and after treatment, the level of TGF-β1 after treatment was significantly lower than that before treatment. Conclusion:The levels of these five inflammatory factors including IL-1β, IL-6, IL-17α, TGF-β1 and TNF-αin peripheral blood could not predict the recovery of sudden hearing loss. The role of inflammation in the development of sudden deafness needs further confirmation. TGF-β1 may be involved in the development of sudden deafness.

Results of a prospective open study of therapy of sudden deafness with flunarizine

The treatment effect of the lipophilic calcium antagonist flunarizine on the recovery of sudden hearing loss was evaluated in a prospective phase-II study. Thirty-seven patients presenting with recent and sudden onset of unilateral sensorineural hearing loss were treated with 50 mg flunarizine intravenously for the first two days followed by 10 mg flunarizine orally for four weeks. Pure-tone audiometry was done before the beginning of the treatment and after one and four weeks. The absolute and relative hearing gains after one and four weeks were compared to those of 67 similar patients previously treated with saline infusions and placebo tablets in the same institutions during a double blind study (Probst et al. Acta Otolaryngol. 112 (1992) 435-443). The mean absolute hearing gains of the flunarizine group was 17 dB and 21 dB, after one and four weeks respectively (placebo group: 16 dB and 24 dB). The corresponding relative hearing gains (defined as absolute gain divided by initial hearing loss) were 35% and 43% for the flunarizine group and 33% and 42% for the placebo group. We conclude that flunarizine treatment does not improve the recovery of sudden hearing loss.