Unit:
Κατεύθυνση Ακοολογία–ΝευροωτολογίαLibrary of the School of Health Sciences
Supervisors info:
Κικίδης Δημήτριος, Επιμελητής Β', Α' Πανεπιστημιακή ΩΡΛ Κλινική, ΓΝΑ Ιπποκράτειο
Ξενέλης Ιωάννης, Ομότιμος Καθηγητής, Ιατρική Σχολή, ΕΚΠΑ
Χαραλαμποπούλου Μαργαρίτα, Διευθύντρια ΩΡΛ Κλινικής, Υπεύθυνη Τμήματος Ακοολογίας-Νευροωτολογίας, ΓΝΑ Κοργιαλένειο-Μπενάκειο ΕΕΣ
Original Title:
Σύγκριση μεθόδων καθορισμού συχνότητας και ελάχιστης απαιτούμενης ηχοκάλυψης εμβοών
Translated title:
Comparison of different methods used to determine tinnitus pitch and minimum masking level
Summary:
Background: Tinnitus is a common symptom and its effect in humans ranges from mild to severe, disrupting daily life. Diagnosis of tinnitus is of great importance for the correct implementation of any therapeutic intervention and is based on Tinnitus Pitch Matching-TPM, Tinnitus Loudness Matching-TLM, Minimum Masking Level-MML and Residual Inhibition-RI. In the Tinnitus Clinic of the 1st University ENT Department of Athens, two different methods are used for evaluation of tinnitus, the classic one using the audiometer with which the pure tone audiometry is carried out and a new method, Tinnometer. The subject of this study is the comparison of these two different methods used to determine tinnitus.
Methods: The examination data of 33 outpatients (46 ears) seen in the Tinnitus Clinic of the 1st University ENT Department of Athens, where collected and analyzed for this study. The patients had been examined with the two tinnitus determination methods, Tinnometer and classic, in the same session. The results of TPM, TLM, MML and RI were analyzed to highlight the agreement or not of the values with the two methods. A repeat analysis of the same data was performed including one of the two ears in patients with bilateral tinnitus. It was recorded which patients had symmetrical bilateral tinnitus based on the measurements of each method. Lastly, we compared the two methods’ results when the examined ears were divided into two subgroups based on tinnitus pitch, lower than 8 KHz or extended-high frequency tinnitus.
Results: In TPM the two methods agreed at a rate of 30,43% and the differences in frequency values between the two methods showed a tendency to be greater in the high frequency tinnitus. At the TLM the two methods gave different results in 97,78% of the measurements. Loudness values differed by less than 20 dB between the two methods at 71,11% and a trend was seen to estimate higher tinnitus intensities with Tinnometer. The results of MML were similar. The MML values of the two methods differed from each other in 97,67% of the measurements and in 74,42% the MML by Tinnometer was higher than the corresponding one by classical method. Both the differences of TLM and MML values were more significant in extended-high frequency tinnitus. When examining RI the two methods agreed in 54,17% of ears. Patients were found to have symmetrical bilateral tinnitus almost entirely by both methods. When one ear per patient was included in the analysis of the data there was no difference in the results compared to the original analysis including all cases.
Conclusions: The two methods agreed in 30% of cases in TPM, in 54% in RI and in 92% in symmetry of bilateral tinnitus. They disagreed in a very high percentage of cases (98%) in TLM and MML. The greater differences in the values of TPM, TLM and TLM between the two methods were observed in high frequency tinnitus. The study identified advantages and disadvantages in each method and discussed possible explanations for the observed differences in values.
Main subject category:
Health Sciences
Keywords:
Tinnitus, Comparison of different methods used to determine tinnitus, Tinnitus pitch and loudness matching, Minimum masking level, Residual inhibition, Tinnometer
File:
File access is restricted until 2025-06-03.
Bouka_Aikaterini_Master.pdf
1 MB
File access is restricted until 2025-06-03.
