Association of cochlin-tomoprotein levels with hearing outcomes and initial symptoms in patients with suspected perilymphatic fistula
Rattachement africain : jp. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background Cochlin-tomoprotein (CTP) has recently emerged as a promising diagnostic marker for perilymphatic fistula (PLF), but its utility beyond diagnosis remains unclear.Aims/Objectives We aim to clarify whether CTP levels could help to predict prognosis, treatment efficacy and initial symptoms for PLF.Material/Methods This retrospective study included 20 patients with acute sensorineural hearing loss who underwent CTP testing.Results Among cases of PLF (CTP levels ≥30 ng/mL), higher CTP levels were significantly associated with poorer improvement of hearing. However, the patients with PLF showed better improvement of hearing than those without PLF. When using a level of CTP <25 ng/mL, the surgical intervention group showed better improvement of hearing than the conservative treatment group. The patients presenting progression of hearing loss (≥10 dB) showed significantly higher levels of CTP. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that a cut-off level of CTP 26.9 ng/mL predicted hearing improvement ≥15 dB with an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.68–1.00, p = 0.0335), yielding a sensitivity of 68.8% and a specificity of 100%.Conclusion The current proposal of CTP ≥30 ng/mL or nearby levels can be used not only as a diagnostic marker, but also as an indicator for initial symptoms and prognosis.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Association of cochlin-tomoprotein levels with hearing outcomes and initial symptoms in patients with suspected perilymphatic fistula
- Date Crossref
- 26/11/2025
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.