2022
DOI: 10.1097/mao.0000000000003489
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bilateral Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Distinct Phenotype Entity

Abstract: Objective: To investigate the clinical phenotype and hearing prognosis of patients with unilateral and bilateral (simultaneous and nonsimultaneous) sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL). Study Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: Otology outpatient clinic of a tertiary university hospital. Patients: Three hundred eighty-five medical records from patients with SSNHL. Main Outcome Measure(s): Comparison of demographic, clinical, and audiometric (pretreatment and posttreatment) data of patients with unilate… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 24 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This suggested that BSSNHL had a much poorer prognosis compared to USSNHL. Previous studies reported that hearing loss in Si-BSSNHL was more severe and prognosis was worse than that in Se-BSSNHL or USSNHL, 5,15 however, Bing et al 4 reported no significant difference in pre-treatment hearing thresholds or hearing gain between Si-BSSNHL and Se-BSSNHL groups, similar to our findings. This may be due to the different inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size or efficacy assessment criteria of the studies.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…This suggested that BSSNHL had a much poorer prognosis compared to USSNHL. Previous studies reported that hearing loss in Si-BSSNHL was more severe and prognosis was worse than that in Se-BSSNHL or USSNHL, 5,15 however, Bing et al 4 reported no significant difference in pre-treatment hearing thresholds or hearing gain between Si-BSSNHL and Se-BSSNHL groups, similar to our findings. This may be due to the different inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size or efficacy assessment criteria of the studies.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%