Comparison of sudden deafness in adults and children

33Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives. Although many studies have assessed sudden deafness in adults, sudden deafness has not been evaluated in children. We therefore evaluated the differences in sudden deafness between children and adults. Methods. We compared clinical manifestations, including gender, audiogram pattern of initial hearing loss, and recovery rate after treatment in 87 children and 707 adults diagnosed with sudden deafness from September 2003 and August 2012. Results. There were no differences in sex, side, or audiogram between children and adults (P>0.05 each). Hearing recovery rates in children and adults were 72.4% and 70.6%, respectively (P>0.05). Both children and adults with mild hearing loss showed significantly greater hearing recovery rates than individuals with profound hearing loss (P<0.05 each). The percentage with initially mild and moderate hearing loss was higher in children than in adults, as were the recovery rates of children compared to adults with initially mild, moderate-severe, and profound hearing loss (P<0.05 each). In regard to final hearing outcome after treatment, a low percentage of children showed no improvement whereas a high percentage showed complete recovery; a higher percentage of children than of adults showed complete recovery (P<0.05). Recovery rate from profound hearing loss was significantly higher in children than in adults (60.0% vs. 45.4%, P<0.05). Conclusion. Degree of hearing loss, gender, side, and recovery rate were similar in children and adults, but the rate of complete recovery was higher in children. © 2014 by Korean Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Na, S. Y., Kim, M. G., Hong, S. M., Chung, J. H., Kang, H. M., & Yeo, S. G. (2014). Comparison of sudden deafness in adults and children. Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology, 7(3), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.3342/ceo.2014.7.3.165

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free