How Important Is Getting Help/Treatment Soon After Onset?

[chris.paget]

Hi everyone,

I'm new to this forum, so hello!

So I have had some tinnitus mainly in my left ear since around January. I'm not sure what caused it. I'm a musician and was around loud music, but nothing different from before onset, but I also had a middle ear infection in December that I've never had before. I'll go into more details in the "introduce yourself" forum..

My question is: How dependent on positive results is seeking treatment quickly? I ask because I rescheduled an appointment from today for a month away. I had been looking forward to this appointment but also nervous about getting any news about permanent damage. This was part of why I backed out, with some Monday busy-ness in there also and not feeling well today. Part of the thing that made the decision easier is that I wasn't experiencing the tinnitus this morning (it is generally fairly constant, but I usually have a minute or two of relief right when I wake up). So, I was able to justify my decision and continue with my daily home treatment, which includes a calcium-magnesium-zinc supplement, Ring Relief tablets and ear drops, and a B12 losenge.

But in reading at least about prednisone treatments, I was seeing that treatments soon after onset is key. I hadn't heard about that as a treatment option. So now I'm worried that I shouldn't have canceled today, but I'm also not sure if I'm overgeneralizing from that.

Glad to be here, and I already appreciate the fact that this forum exists! Thanks in advance for your help!

PS. It might be important to note that this was not necessarily sudden onset and there is no hearing loss that I can tell (the ENT appointment will include a hearing test though).

 

[Contrast]

I'm not sure what caused it. I'm a musician and was around loud music, but nothing different from before onset

Loud noise exposure causing hearing loss is the most common cause of tinnitus, but yes they can be combined with an ear infection.

ear drops

Tinnitus is a neurological response to a loss of hearing, how in the world would ear drops do anything? They would just rinse out the ear canal leaking out or down the eustachian tube, they would never reach the cochlea/inner ear to repair anything. Any ear drop that claims to treat tinnitus is fake medicine.


Ring Relief is a known fake medicine, it's homeopathy which means it's non-scientific and doesn't do shit. The only thing that has steady clinical evidence is magnesium.

Oral magnesium intake reduces permanent hearing loss Induced by noise exposure.

 

[Contrast]

but also nervous about getting any news about permanent damage.

It might be important to note that this was not necessarily sudden onset and there is no hearing loss that I can tell (the ENT appointment will include a hearing test though)

Recent research indicates that hearing test used at most audiology clinics and ENTs do not test the full range of human hearing, and miss a lot. Tonal audiogram tests only check for hearing loss within the human voice range (bare vitals of hearing). Learn more here about hidden hearing loss and how hearing in noisy environments and music perception is not tested on standard hearing test.

http://hyperacusisfocus.org/innerear/

Research cited:

Hidden Hearing loss (cochlear synaptopathy) in the mammalian cochlea.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378595516302507

 

[chris.paget]

I appreciate the information. Right - the ear drops are homeopathic and would not reach the inner ear- I decided to give it a shot given a recommendation from someone on YouTube who took Lipoflavonoid for months by his doctor's recommendation and found this to be more effective, at least temporarily (but, admittedly, he attributed the estimated 20% improvement in tinnitus to the "distraction" that having other fullness in the ear creates). I agree though, and understood the logic behind the isolation of the inner ear going into it, but this was during my early days of looking for possible relief (and the nerves that come with it).

I had seen a study about magnesium. While oral doses were mentioned at one link, that initial study involved delivery of the magnesium somewhat experimentally by a catheter in the ear. But the information is what led me to the supplement I'm taking now, although I'm sure there is a better, purer form to take than what I am. Any suggestions on brands or other info around magnesium would be much appreciated!

Again, thanks for the info, and I appreciate the link to the study as that's the first I've seen specific to noise exposure.

 

[chris.paget]

That's an interesting read. Do you know if there is clinical evidence of oral magnesium for reducing existing tinnitus? The article did mention Mg improving microcirculation within the inner ear.

 

[JohnAdams]

Very important but most doctors don't have a clue how to treat it. I think dexamethasone is a good early intervention and even more IGF-1. Good luck finding a doctor to do any of that. My second best guess is hyperbaric oxygen therapy and otoprotective supplements like NAC, EGCG, and curcumin.

 

[Alue]

Very important but most doctors don't have a clue how to treat it. I think dexamethasone is a good early intervention and even more IGF-1. Good luck finding a doctor to do any of that. My second best guess is hyperbaric oxygen therapy and otoprotective supplements like NAC, EGCG, and curcumin.

Have any of those been proven to help once the damage is done?

 

[Starthrower]

My question is: How dependent on positive results is seeking treatment quickly?

Usually for moderate tinnitus or slower build up of tinnitus there really is no treatment to cure it.
For me positive results came from research on my own. Most tinnitus patients are not treated very well and given the usual 15 minute ($200 dollar) routine exam and leaving without any type of help which can make a person more despondent.

But in reading at least about prednisone treatments, I was seeing that treatments soon after onset is key. I hadn't heard about that as a treatment option. So now I'm worried that I shouldn't have canceled today, but I'm also not sure if I'm overgeneralizing from that.

The prednizone is prescribed for sudden hearing loss or for dangerously loud exposure so you would/should not have been prescribed this for general slow onset of your tinnitus.

 

[Digital Doc]

Really, the most important thing with T from noise exposure is to avoid any further damage, and protect the ears. No doctor is required to avoid loud situations, and have hearing protection available, and used appropriately for noise exposures that can't be avoided.

 

[Strife_84]

Recent research indicates that hearing test used at most audiology clinics and ENTs do not test the full range of human hearing, and miss a lot. Tonal audiogram tests only check for hearing loss within the human voice range (bare vitals of hearing). Learn more here about hidden hearing loss and how hearing in noisy environments and music perception is not tested on standard hearing test.

http://hyperacusisfocus.org/innerear/

View attachment 28628


View attachment 28629

Research cited:

Hidden Hearing loss (cochlear synaptopathy) in the mammalian cochlea.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378595516302507

Did they really need to do a research for that? I thought it was fairly known they don't test over 8khz.

It is mostly useless to test ranges over 8khz since even normal people of my age can barely hear 14Khz. My GF is 30 and even she cannot hear over 14khz.
And she has never been exposed to any loud sounds. So I kinda understand why they don't test ranges above 8khz. It has no use for us humans. There is not much useful sound information above that region anyway.

As our hearing deteriorates even on its own as we get older. Only childs are able hear 18-20khz area well anyway. Except maybe some genetic marvels with golden ears.

Sure, I would like to know how my hearing handles over 8khz. But I still wouldn't exceed the range but to 12khz. Even in music we cutoff a lot of frequencies over 12khz. Even over 10khz.

 

[Contrast]

It is useless to test ranges over 8khz since even normal people of my age can barely hear 14KHZ. My GF is 30 and even she cannot hear over 14khz.
And she has never been exposed to any loud sounds. So I kinda understand why they don't test ranges above 8khz. It has no use for us humans. There is not much useful sound information above that region anyway.

As our hearing deteriorates even on its own as we get older. Only childs are able hear 18-20khz area well anyway. Except maybe some genetic marvels with golden ears.

Sure, I would like to know how my hearing handles over 8khz. But I still wouldn't exceed the range but to 12khz. Even in music we cutoff a lot of frequencies over 12khz. Even over 10khz.

Atleast they should test up to 12khz, thats the limit for almost all music if high acoustics are represented, but humans should hear about 16khz

 

[Strife_84]

Atleast they should test up to 12khz, thats the limit for almost all music if high acoustics are represented, but no humans should hear higher then that like 16khz

Yes. I agree, 12khz should be the limit. I went to private ENT and even they had only 8khz test. But they didn't even have a soundproof booth...

I asked from several places and none had soundproof booth in them. It gave me a feeling that hearing is not taken very seriously.

You can get almost everything in your body examined right away. Blood, urine, saliva, anything. But well done hearing test...

 

[Ed209]

I asked from several places and none had soundproof booth in them. It gave me a feeling that hearing is not taken very seriously.

A soundproof booth is important if you want your audiogram to be as accurate as possible. There should also be a calibration date on the equipment (or written down somewhere else) because if the equipment isn't calibrated, you won't get a reliable test.

There are many variables that go into the accuracy of an audiogram: does one have wax in their ears, or clogged Eustachian tubes? What equipment is being used and is it calibrated? Is there a soundproof booth involved? How good is the technician and are they reassessing each frequency to further validate reliability?

This is why it's important that one visits the same clinic (under the same conditions) if one wants the best result, in terms of accuracy, from one audiogram to another. Even then, variation can occur within +- 10 dB HL.

 

[Strife_84]

A soundproof booth is important if you want your audiogram to be as accurate as possible. There should also be a calibration date on the equipment (or written down somewhere else) because if the equipment isn't calibrated, you won't get a reliable test.

There are many variables that go into the accuracy of an audiogram: does one have wax in their ears, or clogged Eustachian tubes? What equipment is being used and is it calibrated? Is there a soundproof booth involved? How good is the technician and are they reassessing each frequency to further validate reliability?

This is why it's important that one visits the same clinic (under the same conditions) if you want the best result in terms of accuracy from one audiogram to another. Even then, variation can occur within +- 10 dB HL.

Nurse took my audiogram. The room had echo in it so it made listening hard. I will ask if I could get sent for a proper hearing test.

I just wanted to take it to ease my nerves. It better to know something than.nothing at all. Anyway, my hearing was very good considering the enviroment. In proper enviroment it should be even better.

 

[Ed209]

I asked from several places and none had soundproof booth in them. It gave me a feeling that hearing is not taken very seriously.

Sometimes they soundproof the actual room. However, if it's just a normal room and there is ambient noise present then it won't be very accurate.

Nurse took my audiogram. The room had echo in it so it made listening hard. I will ask if I could get sent for a proper hearing test.

That's not ideal for a hearing test. There must be a clinic nearby that can do this properly for you?

 

[Strife_84]

Sometimes they soundproof the actual room. However, if it's just a normal room and there is ambient noise present then it won't be very accurate.

That's not ideal for a hearing test. There must be a clinic nearby that can do this properly for you?

I still got normal curve even in harder listening conditions. So that is a good sign.

There are many clinics but they cost money which I don't have. I will go see my ENT next week if he could send me to public Healthcare for proper hearing test. I know the central hospital has soundproof booth.

But it did amaze me not many places don't have the booth...

Also I think if Id gotten this medicine (prednisolon) instantly I could've healed better. I wasted over a week after the damage.

Public healthcare did not even give me prescription for medicine.

 

[chris.paget]

Have any of those been proven to help once the damage is done?

I'm also very curious about this.

 

[Contrast]

Nurse took my audiogram. The room had echo in it so it made listening hard. I will ask if I could get sent for a proper hearing test.

I just wanted to take it to ease my nerves. It better to know something than.nothing at all. Anyway, my hearing was very good considering the enviroment. In proper enviroment it should be even better.

Don't be dogmatic, you know you have noise pain, tinnitus and a history of loud music exposure.

 

[Strife_84]

Don't be dogmatic, you know you have noise pain, tinnitus and a history of loud music exposure.

I don't have noise pain like that. Certain sounds just feel bad/strange to my ear but it doesn't cause pain. But my ear starts to hurt during the day, I guess it gets tired? Anyway, listening does not cause pain itself.

I can watch TV, even listen music at slightly below normal volumes, I try to avoid listening music though. My ears need rest now.

Certain frequencies still gets distorted in my ear.