Sudden sensorineural hearing loss: evidence from Taiwan

Lee

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

et al. 2018

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss With Affective Disorders

Lee

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

et al. 2018

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

“…The annual incidence of SSNHL has been reported to range from as few as 4 cases per 100 000 population to as many as 160 cases per 100 000 population. [2][3][4][5][6] The etiology of SSNHL is unclear but is likely multifactorial. Some of the proposed mechanisms include infection, autoimmune conditions, vascular insufficiency, and rupture of the labyrinthine membrane.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss With Vertebrobasilar Insufficiency

Hsu

Chiu

et al. 2016

“…The high incidence of SSNHL is reflected in the fact that the World Health Organization and the European Union do not consider it a rare disease (prevalence less than 50 per 100,000 inhabitants) [3]. SSNHL typically occurs in middle adulthood and the incidence increases with age [4][5][6].…”

Section: Ssnhl Can Have a Tremendous Impact On One's Quality Of Life mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuroplastic Effect of Constraint-Induced Music Therapy on Hearing Recovery in Patients with Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Kuo¹

2019

NNR

Objective: Constraint-induced music therapy (CIMT) has been shown to enhance hearing recovery in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) by preventing maladaptive reorganization of the auditory cortex. Our objective in this study was to assess the effectiveness of CIMT in restoring hearing among patients with SSNHL. Methods: The study included prospective (CIMT group) and retrospective (non-CIMT group) study arms. CIMT is characterized by (1) plugging the healthy ear to induce temporary artificial hearing loss (i.e., constraint) and (2) simultaneous acoustic stimulation of the affected ear using relaxing music. The outcome variables used to evaluate hearing recovery included (1) hearing threshold, (2) interaural hearing gap, and (3) hearing recovery rate. We measured the P300 component of long-latency auditory evoked potential to analyze brain activity to determine the appearance of neuroplasticity in assessing a subgroup of six patients with CIMT. All of the patients in the study also received conventional steroid therapy. Results: The CIMT and non-CIMT groups were comparable in terms of pre-treatment hearing level (P = 0.710), age (P = 0.124), gender (P = 0.272), and side of hearing loss (P = 0.132). In both groups, we observed a significant improvement in hearing thresholds at two weeks and four weeks after treatment (all P <0.01). Nevertheless, we did not observe a statistically significant difference in hearing recovery when using hearing threshold, interaural hearing gap, or hearing recovering rate as outcome variables (P >0.05). This observation was verified using multivariate analysis (non-CIMT vs. CIMT, odds ratio 3.84, 95% confidence interval 0.18-81.65, P = 0.388 at two weeks after treatment; odds ratio 2.70, 95% confidence interval 0.15-47.60, P = 0.497 at four weeks after treatment). P300 measurements conducted on affected ears failed to identify significant signs of neuroplastic change in response to CIMT (P = 0.063 for the amplitude comparison; P = 0.094 for the latency comparison). Conclusion: CIMT is a safe, cost-effective addition to corticosteroid treatment for SSNHL patients. It is also possible that CIMT provides an enjoyable therapeutic adjunct for the relief of stress and anxiety associated with SSNHL. However, our results failed to identify the additive effect of CIMT on hearing recovery in patients with SSNHL. Our study was also unable to confirm the degree of neuroplasticity in patients with CIMT.