Abstract Introduction Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is hearing loss of at least 30 dB in at least 3 contiguous frequencies within at least 72 hours. There are many different theories to explain it, and many differentmodalities are used for its management, such as: systemic steroids (SSs), intratympanic steroid injection (ITSI), hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HOT), antiviral drugs, and vasodilators or vasoactive substances. Objectives This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the combination of the most common treatmentmodalities of ISSNHL and to compare the results if HOTwas not one of the treatment modalities administered. Methods The study was conducted with 22 ISSNHL patients with ages ranging from 34 to 58 years. The patients were divided into 2 groups; group A included 11 patients managed by SSs, ITSI, antiviral therapy, and HOT simultaneously, and group B included 11 patients exposed to the aforementioned modalities, with the exception of HOT. Results After one month, all of the patients in group A showed total improvement in hearing in all frequencies, with pure tone average (PTA) of 18.1 ± 2.2, while in group B, 5/11 (45.5%) patients showed total improvement, and 6 /11 (54.5%) patients showed partial improvement, with a total mean PTA of 28.1 ± 8.7. Conclusion The early administration of HOT in combination with other clinically approved modalities (SSs, ITSI, antiviral therapy) provides better results than the administration of the same modalities, with the exception of HOT, in the treatment of ISSNHL.

Abstract Introduction Recent advances in surgical techniques and electrode design have made residual hearing preservation during cochlear implantation (CI) possible, achievable, and desirable. Objectives The objective of this study was to review the literature regarding methods used for hearing preservation during CI surgery. Data Synthesis We performed a search in the LILACS, MEDLINE, SciELO, PubMed databases, and Cochrane Library, using the keywords CI, hearing preservation, CI electrode design, and CI soft surgery. We fully read about 15 studies that met the criteria described in “study selection”. The studies showed that several factors could contribute to possible cochlear damage during or after CI surgery and must be kept in mind; mechanical damage during electrode insertion, shock waves in the perilymph fluid due to implantation, acoustic trauma due to drilling, loss of perilymph and disruption of inner ear fluid homeostasis, potential bacterial infection, and secondary intracochlear fibrous tissue formation. The desire to preserve residual hearing has led to the development of the soft-surgery protocols with its various components; avoiding entry of blood into the cochlea and the use of hyaluronate seem to be reasonably supported, whereas the use of topical steroids is questionable. The site of entry into the cochlea, electrode design, and the depth of insertion are also important contributing factors. Conclusion Hearing preservation would be useful for CI patients to benefit from the residual low frequency, as well as for the children who could be candidate for future regenerative hair cell therapy.