Comparação entre critérios de recuperação auditiva na perda neurossensorial súbita

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Inoue, Daniel Paganini [UNIFESP]
Data de Publicação: 2012
Outros Autores: Bogaz, Eduardo Amaro [UNIFESP], Barros, Flávia [UNIFESP], Penido, Norma de Oliveira [UNIFESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942012000300009
http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/7137
Resumo: The countless methods available to analyze hearing recovery in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) cases hinder the comparison of the various treatments found in the literature. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to compare the different criteria for hearing recovery in ISSHL found in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an observational clinical cohort study from a prospective protocol in patients with ISSHL, treated between 2000 and 2010. Five criteria were considered for significant hearing recovery and four for complete recovery by pure tone audiometry, using non-parametric tests and multiple comparisons at a significance level of 5%. After determining the stricter criteria for hearing recovery, vocal audiometry parameters were added. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the criteria (p < 0.001) as they were analyzed together. Mild auditory recovery occurred in only 35 (27.6%) patients. When speech audiometry was added, only 34 patients (26.8%) showed significant improvement. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consistency among the criteria used for hearing recovery. The criterion of change of functional category by one degree into at least mild hearing recovery was the stricter. Speech audiometry did not prove essential to define significant hearing recovery.
id UFSP_127e7105347d8bcbc56b576337d24a12
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unifesp.br/:11600/7137
network_acronym_str UFSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
repository_id_str 3465
spelling Comparação entre critérios de recuperação auditiva na perda neurossensorial súbitaComparison of hearing recovery criteria in sudden sensorineural hearing lossaudiometry pure-toneaudiometry speechhearing loss suddenspeech intelligibilityaudiometria da falaaudiometria de tons purosinteligibilidade da falaperda auditiva súbitaThe countless methods available to analyze hearing recovery in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) cases hinder the comparison of the various treatments found in the literature. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to compare the different criteria for hearing recovery in ISSHL found in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an observational clinical cohort study from a prospective protocol in patients with ISSHL, treated between 2000 and 2010. Five criteria were considered for significant hearing recovery and four for complete recovery by pure tone audiometry, using non-parametric tests and multiple comparisons at a significance level of 5%. After determining the stricter criteria for hearing recovery, vocal audiometry parameters were added. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the criteria (p < 0.001) as they were analyzed together. Mild auditory recovery occurred in only 35 (27.6%) patients. When speech audiometry was added, only 34 patients (26.8%) showed significant improvement. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consistency among the criteria used for hearing recovery. The criterion of change of functional category by one degree into at least mild hearing recovery was the stricter. Speech audiometry did not prove essential to define significant hearing recovery.Inúmeros métodos de análise da recuperação auditiva na perda auditiva neurossensorial súbita idiopática (PANSI) dificultam a comparação adequada dos diversos tratamentos encontrados na Literatura. OBJETIVO: Comparar diversos critérios de recuperação auditiva na PANSI, baseados na Literatura. MATERIAL E MÉTODO: Foi realizado um estudo clínico observacional de coorte, a partir de um protocolo prospectivo, em pacientes com PANSI, atendidos entre 2000 e 2010. Foram comparados cinco critérios de recuperação auditiva significativa e quatro critérios para recuperação completa, pela audiometria tonal, por meio de teste não paramétrico e de comparações múltiplas, ambos com um nível de significância de 5%. Após determinação do critério de recuperação auditiva mais rígido, foram adicionados parâmetros da audiometria vocal. RESULTADOS: Houve diferença significativa, entre esses critérios (p < 0,001), quando analisados em conjunto. A recuperação auditiva para, pelo menos, grau leve, ocorreu em apenas 35 (27,6%) pacientes. Ao adicionarmos parâmetros da audiometria vocal, apenas 34 pacientes (26,8%) tiveram melhora significativa. CONCLUSÕES: Existe falta de uniformidade entre os critérios de recuperação auditiva utilizados pela literatura. O critério de mudança de categoria funcional para um grau, pelo menos leve, foi o mais rígido. O uso da audiometria vocal não foi fundamental para definir recuperação auditiva significativa.Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) Programa de Pós-Graduação em Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia de Cabeça e PescoçoUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) Ambulatório de Surdez SúbitaUNIFESP, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia de Cabeça e PescoçoUNIFESP, Ambulatório de Surdez SúbitaSciELOAssociação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia CervicofacialUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)Inoue, Daniel Paganini [UNIFESP]Bogaz, Eduardo Amaro [UNIFESP]Barros, Flávia [UNIFESP]Penido, Norma de Oliveira [UNIFESP]2015-06-14T13:44:45Z2015-06-14T13:44:45Z2012-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion42-48application/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942012000300009Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cervicofacial, v. 78, n. 3, p. 42-48, 2012.10.1590/S1808-86942012000300009S1808-86942012000300009.pdfS1808-86942012000300009-pt.pdf1808-8694S1808-86942012000300009http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/7137WOS:000305549100009porBrazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngologyinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNIFESPinstname:Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)instacron:UNIFESP2024-07-28T21:44:05Zoai:repositorio.unifesp.br/:11600/7137Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://www.repositorio.unifesp.br/oai/requestbiblioteca.csp@unifesp.bropendoar:34652024-07-28T21:44:05Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparação entre critérios de recuperação auditiva na perda neurossensorial súbita
Comparison of hearing recovery criteria in sudden sensorineural hearing loss
title Comparação entre critérios de recuperação auditiva na perda neurossensorial súbita
spellingShingle Comparação entre critérios de recuperação auditiva na perda neurossensorial súbita
Inoue, Daniel Paganini [UNIFESP]
audiometry pure-tone
audiometry speech
hearing loss sudden
speech intelligibility
audiometria da fala
audiometria de tons puros
inteligibilidade da fala
perda auditiva súbita
title_short Comparação entre critérios de recuperação auditiva na perda neurossensorial súbita
title_full Comparação entre critérios de recuperação auditiva na perda neurossensorial súbita
title_fullStr Comparação entre critérios de recuperação auditiva na perda neurossensorial súbita
title_full_unstemmed Comparação entre critérios de recuperação auditiva na perda neurossensorial súbita
title_sort Comparação entre critérios de recuperação auditiva na perda neurossensorial súbita
author Inoue, Daniel Paganini [UNIFESP]
author_facet Inoue, Daniel Paganini [UNIFESP]
Bogaz, Eduardo Amaro [UNIFESP]
Barros, Flávia [UNIFESP]
Penido, Norma de Oliveira [UNIFESP]
author_role author
author2 Bogaz, Eduardo Amaro [UNIFESP]
Barros, Flávia [UNIFESP]
Penido, Norma de Oliveira [UNIFESP]
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Inoue, Daniel Paganini [UNIFESP]
Bogaz, Eduardo Amaro [UNIFESP]
Barros, Flávia [UNIFESP]
Penido, Norma de Oliveira [UNIFESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv audiometry pure-tone
audiometry speech
hearing loss sudden
speech intelligibility
audiometria da fala
audiometria de tons puros
inteligibilidade da fala
perda auditiva súbita
topic audiometry pure-tone
audiometry speech
hearing loss sudden
speech intelligibility
audiometria da fala
audiometria de tons puros
inteligibilidade da fala
perda auditiva súbita
description The countless methods available to analyze hearing recovery in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) cases hinder the comparison of the various treatments found in the literature. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to compare the different criteria for hearing recovery in ISSHL found in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an observational clinical cohort study from a prospective protocol in patients with ISSHL, treated between 2000 and 2010. Five criteria were considered for significant hearing recovery and four for complete recovery by pure tone audiometry, using non-parametric tests and multiple comparisons at a significance level of 5%. After determining the stricter criteria for hearing recovery, vocal audiometry parameters were added. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the criteria (p < 0.001) as they were analyzed together. Mild auditory recovery occurred in only 35 (27.6%) patients. When speech audiometry was added, only 34 patients (26.8%) showed significant improvement. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consistency among the criteria used for hearing recovery. The criterion of change of functional category by one degree into at least mild hearing recovery was the stricter. Speech audiometry did not prove essential to define significant hearing recovery.
publishDate 2012
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2012-06-01
2015-06-14T13:44:45Z
2015-06-14T13:44:45Z
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942012000300009
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cervicofacial, v. 78, n. 3, p. 42-48, 2012.
10.1590/S1808-86942012000300009
S1808-86942012000300009.pdf
S1808-86942012000300009-pt.pdf
1808-8694
S1808-86942012000300009
http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/7137
WOS:000305549100009
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942012000300009
http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/7137
identifier_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cervicofacial, v. 78, n. 3, p. 42-48, 2012.
10.1590/S1808-86942012000300009
S1808-86942012000300009.pdf
S1808-86942012000300009-pt.pdf
1808-8694
S1808-86942012000300009
WOS:000305549100009
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 42-48
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cervicofacial
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cervicofacial
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
instname:Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
instacron:UNIFESP
instname_str Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
instacron_str UNIFESP
institution UNIFESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv biblioteca.csp@unifesp.br
_version_ 1814268284078391296