200例主观性耳鸣患者听力损失临床分析

目的:对耳鸣患者的听力损失进行分析,为进一步探讨耳鸣的发病原因、检查方法提供临床依据。方法:对以主观性耳鸣为主诉的200例患者进行耳科专科检查、声导抗检测、常频纯音听阈测听和高频扩展听阈测听检查。结果:200例耳鸣患者中,单侧耳鸣123例(61.5%),双侧耳鸣77例(38.5%);46例(23.0%)听力正常。单侧耳鸣中,患侧与对侧听阈比较0.125～8kHz差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),10kHz及其以上频率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。常频听力正常组与听力异常组比较各频率阈值差异均具有统计学意义(均P<0.05),听力异常组扩展高频检出率低于听力正常组。结论:耳鸣可以存在听力正常的人群中,扩展高频测听能否为耳鸣患者提供早期听力损失的依据,尚需对更多的临床资料进一步研究。     

242例不同类型听力曲线耳鸣患者心理声学分析

目的探讨不同听力曲线类型耳鸣患者耳鸣心理声学特点。方法回顾性研究符合纳入排除标准的耳鸣患者的纯音测听结果及耳鸣心理声学检查结果,采用SPSS 20.0中文版软件对所收集的相关数据进行分析,P≤0.05时差异有统计学意义。结果共收集符合标准的耳鸣患者242例,听力曲线分别为听力正常型82例(占33.88%),低频下降型14例(占5.79%),高频下降型94例(占38.84%),平坦下降型52例(21.49%);耳鸣主调声频率以4000Hz和8000Hz居多,耳鸣主调声响度则大多小等于5d B SL,Feldmann曲线主要是汇聚型和重叠型,残余抑制试验结果以阴性为多;经卡方检验或Fisher精确检验,不同听力曲线类型耳鸣患者耳鸣主调声频率差异有统计学意义,但耳鸣主调声响度、Feldmann曲线和残余抑制试验结果的差异没有统计学意义。结论不同听力曲线类型耳鸣患者的耳鸣心理声学差异大都没有统计学意义,我们并不能根据听力曲线预估患者的耳鸣心理声学及预后。     

早期噪声性听力损失伴耳鸣患者的掩蔽效果分析

目的:观察耳鸣掩蔽疗法在早期噪声性听力损失伴耳鸣患者中的掩蔽效果,为临床该类耳鸣患者的治疗提供依据。方法:对68例早期噪声性听力损失伴耳鸣患者进行常规听力学检查和耳鸣检测,所有患者掩蔽治疗6个月后对其疗效进行比较分析。疗效评估采用耳鸣残疾评估量表及主观视觉模拟量表,测试比较其治疗前后的最小掩蔽声大小。结果:耳鸣检测结果显示该类患者的耳鸣主频绝大部分(59例,86.8%)为4kHz,残余抑制试验完全阳性者居多(44例,64.7%),掩蔽治疗效果好,有效率达83.8%,其中3例耳鸣完全消失;治疗前后耳鸣残疾评估量表得分、主观视觉模拟量表得分和最小掩蔽声大小比较均差异有统计学意义(均P<0.01)。结论:早期噪声性听力损失伴耳鸣患者的掩蔽治疗效果显著,值得推广。     

爆震性耳鸣及听力损失动物模型研究

随着我国军事力量建设进程加快,爆震引起的耳鸣及听力损失问题日益突出。爆震性耳鸣及听力损失动物模型的建立对探究爆震性耳鸣及听力损失的发病机制和有效防治方法的建立具有重要意义。本文通过探讨模型动物的选择、爆震暴露条件的设置、模型鉴定的检测指标等方面进行综述。为建立合理的爆震性耳鸣及听力损失动物模型,开发该疾病的防治和治疗手段提供参考。     

不同类型听力损失伴耳鸣患者间隔感知特征分析

目的间隔感知测试是一项反映受试者听觉灵敏度的临床测试。本研究主要是对不同类型及程度的听力损失伴耳鸣患者进行间隔感知测试,包括在噪声中的间隔测试及500Hz、1000Hz、2000Hz频率的间隔阈值测试,并探索听力损失及耳鸣对间隔感知测试结果的影响。方法本研究选取听力正常者20例(40耳),听神经病患者15例(30耳),其中有耳鸣患者18耳,无耳鸣患者12耳。感音神经性聋患者36例(45耳),其中有耳鸣患者28耳,无耳鸣患者17耳。对所有受试者进行时域和频域间隔感知测试,并对其中的耳鸣患者进行耳鸣评估测试。结果①AN组间隔感知阈值显著高于听力正常组和感音神经性聋组(P<0.01)。②感音神经性聋组中,听损程度≤60dB患者的间隔感知显著小于听损程度>60dB的患者(P<0.01)。③将500Hz、1000Hz、2000Hz频率下的间隔感知测试结果进行组间比较均有显著性差异(P<0.01)。④对听神经病患者和感音神经性聋患者分别进行有耳鸣组和无耳鸣组分析,时域和频域间隔感知测试结果显示,有耳鸣组和无耳鸣组均无显著性差异(P>0.05)。⑤不同类型的耳鸣声在感音神经性聋患者中的间隔感知无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论间隔感知测试结果与有无耳鸣无关,与耳鸣声类型无关,与听力损失程度及病变部位有关。     

854例耳鸣患者的临床特征分析

目的 探讨收诊的耳鸣患者临床特征,为耳鸣的诊治提供参考依据。方法 收集2018年1月—2021年12月在门诊以耳鸣为第一主诉的854例患者的临床资料,统计分析临床特征,并将患者性别、年龄、侧别、病程、持续性、患耳听力损失程度、耳鸣响度、耳鸣音调、焦虑自评量表评分、睡眠指数评分等因素为自变量,以耳鸣残疾量表评分为因变量,进行多因素线性回归和相关性分析。结果 854例耳鸣患者共有1290耳伴耳鸣,患者的平均年龄为(46.7±14.65)岁,在30～60岁年龄段的耳鸣患者占比最大(65.2%,557/854);其中耳鸣多为持续性(84.0%,717/854),双侧耳鸣和单侧耳鸣约各占一半,在双侧耳鸣患者中多为对称性耳鸣(97.0%,423/436);54.7%(467/854)的耳鸣患者伴有不同程度的焦虑症状,58.8%(502/854)的耳鸣患者伴有不同程度的睡眠障碍,33.0%(426/1290)的耳鸣伴有不同程度的听力下降。耳鸣残疾量表分级以2～3级为主(18～56分,83.3%,711/854);音调匹配以高频多见(4～8kHz,77.3%,997/1290);耳鸣响度以中低响度多见(<60dB,82.3%,1062/1290)。耳鸣持续性(β=-0.690,P=0.011)、听力损失程度(Spearman=0.140,P<0.001)、耳鸣响度(β=0.046,P=0.002;Spearman=0.135,P<0.001)、匹兹堡睡眠质量指数评分(β=0.049,P=0.001;Spearman=0.214,P<0.001)、Zung氏焦虑自评量表(β=0.055,P<0.001;Spearman=0.241,P<0.001)与耳鸣残疾量表评分有关。结论 2018年以来就诊的耳鸣患者其耳鸣严重程度多为轻中度,耳鸣音调多为高频,且大多数为中低响度的耳鸣声。耳鸣的发病人群逐渐年轻化,且多伴有焦虑、睡眠障碍、听力下降等症状。耳鸣的严重程度和耳鸣持续性、听力损失、耳鸣响度、睡眠障碍和焦虑相关,未来应该着重针对这部分人群制定个性化的耳鸣治疗方案。     

2171例耳鸣患者的临床特征分析

目的 探讨耳鸣患者的临床特征,为耳鸣诊治提供参考.方法 收集2014年1月至2015年12月就诊于中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院耳鼻喉科门诊以耳鸣为第一主诉的2 171例(2 736耳)耳鸣患者的临床资料,以耳鸣残疾量表(tinnitus handicap inventory,THI)及视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)评估耳鸣的严重程度,并分析耳鸣的发病年龄、耳鸣侧别、听力状况及可能病因等基本特征.结果 2 171例耳鸣患者平均年龄为44.08±15.37岁,其中41~50岁为分布最集中的年龄段(491例,22.60%),其次为31~40岁(445例,20.50%)1~60岁(438例,20.20%);主观性耳鸣2 120例(97.65%),客观性耳鸣51例(2.35%);单侧耳鸣(1 606例,73.98%)多于双侧耳鸣(539例,24.83%), 颅鸣最少(26例,1.19%);2 736侧耳鸣耳8 000 Hz的平均听阈为69.26±27.70 dB HL,高于1 606侧非耳鸣耳(54.16±30.98 dB HL);THI分级以2、3级为主(55.78%,1 211/2 171),VAS分级以轻、中度耳鸣为主(83.83%,1 820/2 171);音调匹配以高频多见(4~8 kHz,1 199例,55.23%);位于前三位的可能病因为不明原因591例(27.22%)、突发性聋549例(25.29%)及中耳疾病270例(12.44%).结论 本组耳鸣患者中以主观性耳鸣为主,中青年者居多,单侧耳鸣多于双侧耳鸣,耳鸣与听力关系密切;引起耳鸣的病因多而复杂,部分患者不明原因或与耳疾有关,习服治疗是值得推广的治疗方法.     

性别、年龄、听力损失程度与耳鸣严重程度的关系探讨

目的用耳鸣残疾量化表得分评估耳鸣患者耳鸣的严重程度,分析患者的性别、年龄、听力损失程度是否影响耳鸣严重度。方法对97例以耳鸣为第一主诉的主观性耳鸣患者进行系统的耳鼻咽喉科检查、听力学检查和耳鸣残疾评估量表(tinnitus handicap inventory,THI)评分,分析患者的性别、年龄及听力损失程度与THI得分的关系。结果 97例中,男36例,年龄18～78岁(平均47±12.5岁);女61例,年龄15～71岁(平均55±17.6岁),经Wilcoxon秩和检验分析,不同性别间患者的THI得分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),Spearman相关性分析显示,耳鸣患者的年龄、听力损失程度与THI得分之间无明显的相关性(均为P>0.05)。结论耳鸣残疾评估量表得分分析可知耳鸣患者的性别、年龄、听力损失程度对耳鸣严重程度无明显的影响。     

主诉耳鸣的突发性单个频率听力损失两例

突发性聋为耳鼻咽喉科临床常见病，2005年济南会议对突发性聋定义为：突然发生的，可在数分钟、数小时或3天以内，原因不明的感音神经性听力损失，至少在相连的2个频率听力下降20dB以上。我们报道2例以急性耳鸣为主诉的突发性单个频率听力损失，按照突发性聋治疗后，听力均恢复正常，报道如下。     

听力技师对中文版耳鸣残疾量表理解情况的单中心调查

目的探讨中文版耳鸣残疾量表(THI-C)评估耳鸣严重程度的准确性。方法采用问卷调查的方式,对满足纳入标准的听力技师进行调查。问卷为保留了25个条目题干的THI-C。受访人员需写出对各条目的理解情况、向患者的解释内容和所使用的例子。根据华西医院听力中心培训标准,对照听力技师答案,判断听力技师对THI-C各条目的理解和解释情况。答案与培训标准不一致的均计为错误。结果共纳入技师20名,平均年龄24.95±3.41岁,男性4名,女性16名。从业时间为15±6.15月。发出调查问卷20份,回收问卷20份。听力技师对THI-C的总平均正确理解率为83.6%±19.4%,总平均正确解释率为80.6%±21.5%。亚维度的正确理解率分别为功能性88.6%、严重性87%、情感性75.6%。亚维度的正确解释率分别为功能性86.4%、严重性80%、情感性73.9%。理解和解释正确率低于90%的条目占40%。按从业时间将技师分为两组,A组:从业时间≥1年,共10名;B组:从业时间<1年,共10名。A组正确理解率、正确解释率分别为86%±17.56%、81.6%±21.35%;B组正确理解率、正确解释率分别为81.6%±22.5%、78.8%±24%。经卡方检验两组间正确理解率与正确解释率均无统计学差异(χ2理解率=0.5,P=0.822;χ2解释率=0.617,P=0.432)。结论经专门培训进行耳鸣咨询的我中心听力技师对THI-C的理解仍不能达到较高水平,随着从业时间的延长,正确理解率和解释率也并未明显提高。     

Characteristics of tinnitus with or without hearing loss: Clinical observations in Sicilian tinnitus patients

Objective

To analyze the clinical characteristics of tinnitus both in normal hearing subjects and in patients with hearing loss.

Methods

The study considered 312 tinnitus sufferers, 176 males and 136 females, ranging from 21 to 83 years of age, who were referred to the Audiology Section of the Department of Bio-technology of Palermo University. The following parameters were considered: age, sex, hearing threshold, tinnitus laterality, tinnitus duration, tinnitus measurements and subjective disturbance caused by tinnitus. The sample was divided into two groups: Group 1 (G1) subjects with normal hearing; Group 2 (G2) subjects with hearing loss.

Results

Among the patients considered, 115 have normal hearing while 197 have a hearing deficit. There is a slight predominance of males respect to females that is more evidenced in G2 (61.42% of males vs. 38.58% of females). The highest percentage of tinnitus results in the decades 41–50 for G1 and >70 for G2 with a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.0001).The hearing impairment results in most cases of sensorineural type (74.62%) and limited to the high frequencies (58.50%), moreover the 72.10% of the patients with SNHL had a high-pitched tinnitus while the 88.37% of the patients high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss had a high-pitched tinnitus (P < 0.0001). As for the subjective discomfort, the catastrophic category resulted most representative among subjects with normal hearing with a statistically significant difference between the two groups but no significant correlation was found between the level of tinnitus intensity and the tinnitus annoyance confirming the possibility that tinnitus discomfort is elicited by a certain degree of psychological distress as anxiety, depression, irritability and phobias that do not allow the phenomenon of the ‘habituation’.

Conclusion

This work, according to literature data, suggests that the hearing status and the elderly represent the principal tinnitus related factors; moreover tinnitus characteristics differ in the two groups for tinnitus pitch. There is, in fact, a statistically significant association between high-pitched tinnitus and high-frequency SNHL suggesting that the auditory pathway reorganization induced by hearing loss could be one of the main source of the tinnitus sensation.     

135例老年人性激素及甲状腺素水平与耳鸣耳聋的关系

目的：探讨老年耳鸣耳聋与内分泌的功能的关系。方法：对135例常规体检老年人的耳鸣,耳聋情况及其血清性激素,甲状腺激素进行检测和分组统计比较,结果：有耳鸣耳聋者上述血清激素值低于无此症状者,差异有显著性意义,结论：本研究表明,和下丘脑－垂体－甲状腺及性腺轴功能相关的中医“肾”功能对老年耳鸣耳聋的发生有比较明显的影响。     

不同类型听力下降伴耳鸣治疗的疗效分析

目的通过分析耳鸣与听力下降的关系,总结耳鸣与不同类型听力下降的关联性,以及不同类型听力下降所伴有耳鸣的治疗效果。方法分析2016年1月~2017年6月因“耳鸣”或者因“听力下降伴有耳鸣”就诊的急性耳鸣患者188例,其中男102例,女86例;年龄23~62岁,平均年龄44岁。双侧耳鸣者65例,单侧耳鸣者123例。所有患者入院时均进行电测听及耳鸣检查,根据听力曲线类型对耳鸣患者进行分组,其中听力正常者12例,低频听力下降者36例,高频听力下降者84例,平坦听力下降者42例,全聋型14例。入院后所有患者予以行营养神经、改善循环、激素冲击等治疗,并于入院当日、第3天、第5天及第10天行听力检查及耳鸣检查,比较各组患者耳鸣治疗的疗效。结果不同听力下降类型的耳鸣患者构成比比较,差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。听力正常者耳鸣治疗有效率为91.67%（11/12）,低频听力下降组耳鸣治疗有效率为83.33%（30/36）,高频听力下降组耳鸣治疗有效率为54.76%（46/84）,平坦型听力下降组耳鸣治疗有效率为69.05%（29/42）,全聋型听力下降组耳鸣治疗有效率为28.57%（4/14）,对各组的耳鸣治疗有效率进行比较,差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论高频听力下降者耳鸣发生率最高,听力正常者耳鸣发生率最低。听力正常及低频听力下降者耳鸣治疗有效率最高,高频听力及全聋者耳鸣治疗效果较差。     

A cohort study of patients with tinnitus and sensorineural hearing loss in a Swedish population

Objective

We aimed to describe a large cohort of patients with tinnitus and sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in Sweden, and also to explore the possibility of finding potential possible differences between various diagnoses within SNHL. It is also of great interest to see how a multidisciplinary team was used in the different subgroups and the frequency of hearing aids use in patients with tinnitus.

Methods

Medical records of all patients who had received the diagnosis SNHL in Östergötland County, Sweden between 2004 and 2007 were reviewed. Patients between 20 and 80 years with tinnitus and a pure tone average (PTA) lower than 70 dB HL were included in the study. Patients were excluded from the analyses if they had a cochlear implantation, middle ear disorders or had a hearing loss since birth or childhood. The investigators completed a form for each included patient, covering background facts, and audiograms taken at the yearly check up.

Results

Of a total 1672 patients’ medical record review, 714 patients were included. The majority of patients (79%) were in the age group over 50 years. In male patients with bilateral tinnitus, the PTA for the left ear was significantly higher than for the right ear. The results regarding the configuration of hearing loss revealed that 555 patients (78%) had symmetric and 159 (22%) asymmetric hearing loss. Retrocochlear examinations were done in 372 patients and MRI was the most common examination.In all patients, 400 had no hearing aids and out of those 220 had unilateral tinnitus and 180 patients had bilateral tinnitus. 219 patients had a PTA > 20 dB HL and did not have any hearing aid. Results demonstrated that the Stepped Care model was not used widely in the daily practice. In our study, patients with bilateral-, unilateral hearing loss or Mb Ménière were the most common patients included in the Stepped Care model.

Conclusion

In a large cohort of patients with SNHL and tinnitus, despite their hearing loss only 39% had hearing aids. It was observed that the medical record review often showed a lack of information about many background factors, such as; patients’ general health condition, which could be a quality factor that needs improvement. Our results show that the Stepped Care model could be an effective option for providing a better access for tinnitus-focused treatment, although the number of patients in this study who were included in the Stepped Care model was low.     

家庭化个体多元复合声治疗对耳鸣伴听力损失患者的疗效及影响因素分析

目的 探究家庭化个体多元复合声治疗对耳鸣伴听力损失患者的有效性,并分析耳鸣伴听力损失患者疗效的影响因素。方法 利用四川省4家三甲医院的既往电子病历记录,回顾性分析2019年3月至2022年3月期间接受家庭化个体多元复合声治疗的212例耳鸣患者临床资料,收集耳鸣患者的人口学特征、听力损失相关和治疗前后的耳鸣障碍量表评分等资料。采用多因素二元逻辑回归分析疗效相关影响因素。结果 家庭化个体多元复合声治疗对耳鸣伴听力损失患者的总有效率为43.87%,治疗周期长于12个月的耳鸣患者的有效改善率(57.43%)显著高于治疗周期短于12个月的耳鸣患者(31.53%),单因素逻辑回归分析比值比(OR)值为2.93 (95%CI:1.67～5.14)。多因素逻辑回归分析提示治疗周期为影响家庭化个体多元复合声治疗效果的独立风险因素,OR值为2.23 (95%CI:1.09～5.00),患者年龄与声治疗疗效的OR值为1.03 (95%CI:1.01～1.05)。结论 研究表明家庭化个体多元复合声治疗可有效改善部分耳鸣患者的临床症状及恼人程度。其中,治疗周期是影响家庭化个体多元复合声治疗疗效的独立危险因素。临...     

伴感音神经性聋的耳鸣患者临床表现及心理声学特点

目的 通过对157例伴感音神经性聋的主观性耳鸣患者分析,了解耳鸣的临床表现和心理声学特点,为耳鸣诊治提供科学依据.方法 采集157例伴感音神经性聋的主观性耳鸣患者的基本信息、既往史、临床表现、听力学及耳鸣检测结果资料,分析耳鸣的临床特点及各因素与耳鸣之间的关系.结果 157例患者男女比为1.6:1,听力下降以高频为主(...     

无自觉听力障碍的耳鸣患者462例听力分析

目的:探讨耳鸣的危险因素,为耳鸣的预防提供科学依据。方法:通过分析462例以耳鸣为惟一主诉的患者听力情况及其耳鸣调查表中所提供的病史,了解各型听力曲线的患者年龄分布、性别特点及所占比例,分析其与噪声接触史、耳毒药物、基础疾病之间的关系。结果:①高频下降型、低频下降型、正常型、中频切迹型、覆盆型及其他型听力曲线所占比例依次为:46.10%、15.80%、14.07%、11.04%、7.58%、5.41%;②年龄分布:高频下降型主要分布在30～40岁患者,低频下降型、正常型、中频切迹型主要分布在20～30岁患者,覆盆型主要分布在50岁以上患者;③男女比例:高频下降型、低频下降型、正常型、中频切迹型、覆盆型及其他型依次为158/55、14/59、29/36、12/39、20/15、9/16;④危险因素:高频下降型、低频下降型、中频切迹型、覆盆型主要危险因素分别为:噪声接触、疲劳或/和精神压力、长期接触乐器、高龄;正常型及其他型未发现明确的危险因素。结论:无自觉听力障碍的耳鸣患者中,听力异常率高达86.00%,其中高频下降型高达46.10%,噪声为主要危险因素,男性为主要受害者;低频下降型占15.80%,疲劳或精神压力为主要危险因素,女性为主要受害者;中频切迹型占11.04%,长期接触乐器为主要危险因素;覆盆型占7.58%,高龄为主要危险因素。     

正常听力耳鸣患者的耳鸣音调

目的通过观察正常听力耳鸣患者的耳鸣音调分布状况,探讨耳鸣的听力下降相关机理。方法总结美国Iowa大学医院2000—2007年耳鸣患者数据库,根据听力图筛选196例耳鸣患者中的听力正常者,对他们的耳鸣音调进行观察。结果耳鸣患者中有34.69%为正常听力者,听力正常耳鸣患者的耳鸣音调分布从500Hz至8kHz频率范围,8kHz耳鸣音调患者占55.88%。最大听阈提高频率与耳鸣音调之间不存在相关性。结论耳鸣可以存在于正常听力人群中,耳鸣音调分布范围较广,耳鸣起源于听力损失的理论不适用于解释正常听力耳鸣人群,耳鸣产生的机理不能用单一的理论来解释。     

声治疗在突发性聋伴耳鸣患者中的应用

声治疗是近年来逐渐兴起的通过一种或多种声音刺激,包括白噪声、窄带噪声、自然噪声、音乐声等的用以治疗耳鸣的手段。其治疗效果已在多项临床研究中获得证实。突发性聋是临床常见的耳部疾病之一,大部分患者伴有耳鸣发作,二者的病因、发病机制以及相互作用原理目前均不明确,突发性聋伴耳鸣发病可对患者的心理健康及生活质量造成严重影响。本文就声治疗的定义和作用机制、声治疗的临床应用、声治疗对突发性聋伴耳鸣作用的国内外研究进展等方面进行综述,探究声治疗在突发性聋伴发耳鸣患者治疗中的应用及意义,并展望其未来发展方向。     

Incidence and duration of self-reported hearing loss and tinnitus in a cohort of COVID-19 patients with sudden chemosensory loss: A STROBE observational study

AimsTo investigate the self-reported audiological symptoms in a cohort of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and monitor improvement or recovery.Material and methodsFollowing the STROBE guidelines for observational studies, a retrospective questionnaire concerning audio-vestibular symptoms was conducted in a cohort of Danish COVID-19 patients with self reported chemosensory loss. Data regarding demographics, symptoms onset, duration and remission was registered in a REDCap database.ResultsOf the 225 respondents with chemosensory loss, 59 (26.2%) reported concomitant hearing loss (10.7%) or tinnitus (16.4%). In a follow-up questionnaire focused on ear-symptoms, severity, and duration (n = 31), 17 reported hearing loss and 21 reported tinnitus. Debut of hearing loss and tinnitus were on average 10 and 30 days respectively, after onset of initial symptoms. Among the hearing loss patients, only two patients experienced full recovery, whereas 15 had partial or no recovery after on average 266 days from COVID-19 symptom onset. Among the tinnitus patients, 7/21 had full recovery, while 14 had partial or no recovery after on average 259 days from COVID-19 symptom onset.ConclusionIn a large Danish cohort of COVID-19 patients, a significant proportion experienced concomitant audiological symptoms which seem long lasting and with negative impact on quality of life. This study warrants further investigation of the association between COVID-19 and audio-vestibular symptoms, and the need for rehabilitation among convalescents.