We evaluated the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy used as a supplement to the first-line medical treatment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL). We tested 68 patients suffering from SSNHL within seven days of hearing loss: 21 patients received the standard treatment protocol of our department (control group) and 47 individuals were treated with an additional application of HBO2 therapy. Treatment success was assessed using pre- and post-treatment audiograms. Outcomes of our study showed a statistically significant improvement in auditory threshold in all frequency groups for the HBO2 group (P < 0.001), whereas in the control group the statistically significant mean auditory gain was observed only for the frequency zone 1,000 to 2,000 Hertz (P = 0.01). Furthermore, the rate of hearing gain in the HBO2 group was more than doubled (61.7%) compared to the control group (28.6%). Complete recovery of the hearing gain in the control group was observed only in the first two frequency groups (14.29%; 4.76%; 0.00%), whereas in the HBO2 group complete recovery was seen in all the frequency groups (19.15%; 21.13%; 6.38%) as well as in the whole frequency range (6.38%). The efficiency of both treatment protocols was statistically significant (P < 0.001) in both groups of patients, but supplementation of the therapy with HBO2 demonstrated a statistically significantly increase in the effect of pharmacotherapy (P < 0.001) by 11.5 decibels (dB) up to the final hearing gain of 20 dB. HBO2 is therefore a promising modality of SSNHL treatment, but specific mechanisms of HBO2 in patients with SSNHL arestill unknown. Further investigations are warranted to explore the mechanisms of action.

We compared the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy used in the treatment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) as a supplementary therapy to the first-line medical treatment according to the different applied pressures used in HBO2 treatment while maintaining the same number of sessions, periodicity and exposure times. We evaluated data from 115 patients suffering from SSNHL within seven days of hearing loss: 35 patients received the standard treatment protocol (control group), and 80 individuals were treated with additional application of HBO2 therapy pressured to 2.0 ATA (H2.0; n=49) or 2.5 ATA (H2.5; n=31), respectively. Treatment success was assessed using pre- and post-treatment audiograms. We found significant differences in both HBO2 groups compared to the control group. In low frequencies the most significant differences can be seen in both H2.0 and H2.5. In spoken speech frequencies only the H2.0 group was statistically significant. In high frequencies the therapeutic benefits were the lowest. Furthermore, we found a notable difference in the therapeutic effect of HBO2 therapy according to the different applied pressure. At low frequencies, the use of 2.5 ATA pressure was more efficient. However, in the higher frequency ranges, the better hearing gains were obtained at the 2.0 ATA pressure. Our results support the possibility of optimizing treatments individually, depending on the type and frequency range of hearing impairment (shape of the audiogram) in favor of using the 2.0 ATA. This is important in terms of an individual approach to each patient as well as to minimize the burden of a patient in order to obtain the maximum therapeutic effect.

Objective: The aim of this study is to fi nd out how many patients with an ongoing smell and taste disorder after COVID-19 infection, can improve the subjective perception of smell by olfactory training method. Methods: Patients after COVID-19 (fi rst and second wave of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021) with persisting smell disorder (hyposmia, anosmia, parosmia, fantosmia) with or without taste disorder and while the olfactory disorder did not improve within one month afterrecovery, signed up on the website www.cuch.sk and asked for a testing set (perfumed felt-tip pens) to be sent. After a self-examination at home, each respondent fi lled out an on-line questionnaire and sent it to the Neurobio logical Institute of the BMC SAV. Patient with confi rmed hypo and anosmia underwent an ENT examination at contracted ENT workplaces in Slovakia. All the 117 patients included got through the olfactory training, twice a day, following the instructions. The control examination was performed after three and six months of smell training. Smell and taste status was evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS) from 1 to 10 in admission and discharge of the study. According to VAS, the average entering olfactory status was 4 and the average taste status reached an average of 2. At admission, 28 patients entering the study suff ered from parosmia, 18 from phantosmia, and 20 from dysgeusia. Results: After the olfactory training, improvement of smell capability was observed in 96 patients, which is 73% from the whole group of patiets (117) with hyposmia and anosmia. The discharge olfactory score after 6 months of olfactory training reached grade 8 according to VAS. Improvement of taste capability was observed in 47 patients, which is 65% from the whole group of patients (72) with hypogeusia and dysgeusia. The discharge taste score after six months of olfacory training reached grade 4 according to VAS. However, various forms of dysgeusia, parosmia, or phantosmia persisted after the olfactory training in 18 patients. Conclusion: Smell (olfactory) training is currently considered the most eff ective rehabilitation method for improving impaired olfactory function after COVID-19 infection. Better subjective results were observed in the restitution of quantitative smell disorder than in quantitative taste disorder. Key words anosmia – hyposmia – COVID-19 – parosmia – phantosmia – hypogeusia – dysgeusia – olfactory training

No abstract

No abstract