Retrospective analysis of our cases with XXXX .

@entity1 @entity393 @entity1274 @entity2459
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prognostic factors and healing ranges of @entity1 treated for @entity2459 ( @entity2459 ). @entity1 AND METHODS: In our study, 33 @entity1 treated for @entity2459 were evaluated between March 1995 and October 2001 retrospectively. After the routine examinations, first audiograms were done. The audiograms were classified as @entity393 in low frequencies, high frequencies, and flat using the Shey and Rubin classification systems. All @entity1 were treated with the same standard regimen. The benefits of treatment were evaluated with the Siegel classification. RESULTS: Various amounts of hearing gains were obtained in 17 of 21 @entity1 treated in the first 5 days. No gain was obtained in 5 of 12 @entity1 , who re-presented after the first 5 days of @entity2459 . There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p =.005). There was hearing gain in all nine @entity1 who had upward-sloping type of audiograms. Hearing gain was obtained in 8 of 12 downward-sloping type and 7 of 12 flat-type audiograms. There was a significant difference between the raising type group and the other groups (p =.04 and p =.014). Also, in 6 of 14 @entity1 with vertigo and in 4 of 12 with bilateral @entity1274 ( @entity1274 ), there was no gain. CONCLUSION: The prognosis of @entity2459 is found to be better in @entity1 who present early and mild @entity1274 and unilateral cases and worse in vertigo, bilaterally severe @entity1274 , and childhood.
