Standardization of Outcome Measures for Intratympanic Steroid Treatment for Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Neil K. Osafo,David R. Friedland,Michael S. Harris,Jazzmyne Adams,Chasity Davis,Kristen Osinski,Ling Tong,Jake Luo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0000000000003709
2022-10-03
Otology & Neurotology
Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To identify variability in reported hearing outcomes for intratympanic (IT) steroid treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) by comparing outcomes using the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) guideline with other published criteria.STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review.SETTING: Tertiary otology practice.PATIENTS: Patients with ISSNHL treated with IT steroid between April 2003 and December 2020.INTERVENTIONS: IT steroid injection and audiometric evaluation.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 1) Rates of full, partial, or no recovery using the AAO-HNS guideline versus other reported criteria, and 2) correlation analyses of demographic and clinical variables with response to IT steroid.RESULTS: Using AAO-HNS reporting criteria, full recovery of the pure-tone average was noted in 25.68% of patients. Applying eight other published outcomes criteria to this patient cohort classified full recovery in 14.87 to 40.54% of patients. Similarly, AAO-HNS criteria classified "no recovery" in 51.35% of our patients, whereas applying the other reported criteria showed an average rate of 62.16% no recovery and as high as 82.43% of patients without recovery. Younger age ( p = 0.003; effect size, 0.924) and IT injection within a week of onset ( p < 0.001; effect size, 1.099) positively correlated with full recovery. There was no impact of prior or concurrent oral steroids, or number of steroid injections on outcome.CONCLUSION: Great variability exists in the literature for assessment of IT steroid outcomes in ISSNHL. Standard reporting of outcomes as per the AAO-HNS SSNHL guideline is recommended to consistently characterize IT steroid efficacy and allow comparison across studies.
clinical neurology,otorhinolaryngology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?