RESUMO
PURPOSE: To examine the prevalence of adherence to hearing aids and determine their rejection causes. METHODS: This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting terms for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We performed an electronic search using PubMed, BVS, and Embase. RESULTS: 21 studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected. They analyzed a total of 12,696 individuals. We observed that the most common causes for positive adherence to hearing aid use included having a higher degree of hearing loss, patients being aware of their condition, and requiring the device in their daily life. The most common causes for rejection were the lack of perceived benefits or discomfort with the use of the device. The results from the meta-analysis show a prevalence of patients who used their hearing aid of 0.623 (95% CI 0.531, 0.714). Both groups are highly heterogeneous (I2 = 99.31% in each group, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients (38%) do not use their hearing aid devices. Homogeneous multicenter studies using the same methodology are needed to analyze the causes of rejection of hearing aids.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Horizontal Canal Cupulolithiasis (hc-BPPV-cu) can mimic a pathology of central origin, so a careful examination is essential to prevent misdiagnosis. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional cohort study of 45 patients suffering from suspected hc-BPPV-cu. We recorded whether patients first presented through an ENT Emergency Department (ED) or through an Outpatient Otolaryngology Clinic (OC). RESULTS: We found statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the OC versus the ED in relation to the time between symptom onset and first assessment (79.7 vs. 3.6 days, respectively), the number of therapeutic maneuvers (one maneuver in 62.5% vs. 75.9%, and more than one in 25.1% vs. 13.7%), and multi-canal BPPV rate (43.8% vs. 3.4%). hc-BPPV-cu did not resolve in 2 patients (12.5%) from the OC and in 3 (10.3%) from de ED, all of which showed central pathology. DISCUSSION: There are no prior studies that analyze the approach to hc-BPPV-cu in the ED. The benefits of early specialist input are early identification of central positional nystagmus, a decrease in symptom duration, reduced number of therapeutic maneuvers required for symptom resolution, and lower rates of iatrogenic multi-canal BPPV. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive approach to hc-BPPV-cu in the ED allows both more effective treatment and early identification of central disorder mimics.