OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficiencies of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) and intratympanic steroid (ITS)treatment for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearingloss (ISSHL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 136 patients who were treated for ISSHL were reviewed fromthemedical records. All of the patients were given systemic steroid therapy (SST). Among them,33patients received HBOT and 36 patients received ITS treatment following SST. The starting time to treatment, risk factors, hearing level, hearing gain (HG), and recovery rate were evaluated from retrospectiverecords. RESULTS: No substantial change in HG was observed for either the HBOT or ITS treatment cohort (p>0.05). But the time to recovery was higher in the ITS treatment cohort (40%) than in theHBOT cohort (17%). The starting time to ITS treatment was 4 days (range: 1-30) and that to HBOT was 8 days (range:3-30). There was a significant difference in the starting time to treatment (Mann-Whitney U-test, p=0.043). Also, hearing loss in the HBOT group was significantly higher than in the ITS treatment group. A significant difference was observed before and after ITS treatment (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients compared with late-onset treatment, ITS may be more effective than HBO after SST failure. It can be used as salvage therapy in patients with ISSHL who are unresponsive to a primary systemic steroid. We observed that HBOT didnot improve results when it was started late. Therefore, more studies that include both ITS treatment and HBOTas anearly treatment option are needed.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficiencies of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) and intratympanic steroid (ITS)treatment for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearingloss (ISSHL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 136 patients who were treated for ISSHL were reviewed fromthemedical records. All of the patients were given systemic steroid therapy (SST). Among them,33patients received HBOT and 36 patients received ITS treatment following SST. The starting time to treatment, risk factors, hearing level, hearing gain (HG), and recovery rate were evaluated from retrospectiverecords. RESULTS: No substantial change in HG was observed for either the HBOT or ITS treatment cohort (p>0.05). But the time to recovery was higher in the ITS treatment cohort (40%) than in theHBOT cohort (17%). The starting time to ITS treatment was 4 days (range: 1-30) and that to HBOT was 8 days (range:3-30). There was a significant difference in the starting time to treatment (Mann-Whitney U-test, p=0.043). Also, hearing loss in the HBOT group was significantly higher than in the ITS treatment group. A significant difference was observed before and after ITS treatment (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients compared with late-onset treatment, ITS may be more effective than HBO after SST failure. It can be used as salvage therapy in patients with ISSHL who are unresponsive to a primary systemic steroid. We observed that HBOT didnot improve results when it was started late. Therefore, more studies that include both ITS treatment and HBOTas anearly treatment option are needed.