Comparação entre critérios de recuperação auditiva na perda neurossensorial súbita Comparison of hearing recovery criteria in sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Abstract

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 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.

Keywords

• audiometria da fala
• audiometria de tons puros
• inteligibilidade da fala
• perda auditiva súbita
• audiometry pure-tone
• audiometry speech
• hearing loss sudden
• speech intelligibility