965 What Did You Say? a Completed Cycle SSNHL Management
Résumé fourni par la source
Abstract Aim To compare the management of patients with SSNHL in a district general hospital to the ENT UK guidelines. Method Data encompassing the management of individuals presenting with (SSNHL) at an ENT centre in both 2022 and 2023 was collected. Data included: investigations, MRI and audiograms, and treatment: oral and intratympanic steroid (ITS) administration. Subsequently, the collected data underwent analysis and was presented to the respective local department for updated information on the SSNHL guidance and treatment pathway, a second cycle of an audit was then conducted. Results In an AUDIT involving 35 patients, 92% underwent same-day diagnostic audiograms, and 76% had MRI scans. All patients received oral steroids, with 80% concurrently receiving proton pump inhibitors in the second cycle. Additionally, 52% required intratympanic steroid (ITS) injections, all administered within six weeks. Subsequent audiograms showed that 66% experienced complete or partial resolution of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL). Conclusions This centre's adherence to national guidelines was higher for same-day audiograms than including MRI in patient evaluations. Most patients received oral steroids, and 52% underwent intratympanic steroid (ITS) treatment, potentially contributing to observed improvements. Literature supports the benefits of successive ITS with oral steroids in sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL). The ongoing national STARFISH trial may further contribute to evidence on SSNHL management.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- 965 What Did You Say? a Completed Cycle SSNHL Management
- Date Crossref
- 01/07/2024
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.