Otolaryngology Online Journal

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +44 151 808 1136

Opinion Article - Otolaryngology Online Journal (2023) Volume 13, Issue 4

Lower leg audiometry: A clinical test for the upgraded hearing responsiveness for body sounds in predominant trench dehiscence condition

Magnus Westin *

Audiology and Neurotology Department, ENT, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

*Corresponding Author:
Magnus Westin
Audiology and Neurotology Department
Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
E-mail: westimagnus@ki.se

Received: 11-June-2023, Manuscript No. jorl-23-108588; Editor assigned: 13-June-2023, PreQC No. jorl-23-108588(PQ); Reviewed: 29-June-2023, QC No. jorl-23-108588; Revised: 02-June-2023, Manuscript No. jorl-23-108588(R); Published: 10-July-2023, DOI: 10.35841/2250-0359.13.4.334

Visit for more related articles at Otolaryngology Online Journal

The unrivalled waterway dehiscence condition (SCDS) is a sound vestibular problem where the presence of a bone dehiscence at the vault of the predominant semi-roundabout channel changes the internal ear miniature liquid elements. The vestibular organ becomes delicate for serious sounds/vibrations and strain slopes; the cochlea shows an excessive touchiness to inward body sounds/vibrations and a less reaction for natural sounds [1].

Characterized as an "otological mimicker", SCDS has a capricious and testing clinical show, most frequently appearing in middle age (30-50 years) with a sluggish clinical movement, at times advanced by a skull injury. A significant SCDS highlight is the conference extreme touchiness for inside body sounds (HIBS) which is fluidly depicted as an improved knowing about one's own heartbeat, borborygmi, joints developments, eye developments, voice, crunching, and venturing [2].

HIBS describes the SCDS clinical show, along with ear completion and dazedness, and answers effectively to careful treatment. Notwithstanding its conspicuousness, HIBS remains scarcely quantifiable. Right now, scarcely any approved overviews and a weber test with forks applied on the lower leg are the proposed evaluations for HIBS. Nonetheless, a proportion of HIBS is worth thought for observing of careful results however more overall for the measurement of a significant side effect in SCDS [3].

An exploratory technique for the proportion of HIBS was introduced, comprising of a psychoacoustic hearing test in which the sound was snubbed by controlled sinusoidal bone vibrations conveyed at various far off body locales. The boost was created by a bone transducer; the Specialist comprised of vibrations at various frequencies somewhere in the range of 125 and 1,000 Hz conveyed at three distinct locales: the skull vertex, the spinous course of seventh cervical vertebra, and the average malleolus of lower legs. The review demonstrated the way that the low recurrence far off vibrations could be heard at altogether lower powers by SCDS patients. As we would like to think, the Brantberg's psychoacoustic hearing test addresses the best methodology for the investigation of HIBS, and the motivation behind this work is to imitate the outcomes acquired, however adjusting the technique to clinical use. We have subsequently set up a comparable trial convention, subbing the Minishaker with the original bone transducer model, addresses a precommercial model with the particular property to convey low recurrence vibrations at adequately boisterous powers to match the Minishaker yet beating its downsides as far as lower weight and more modest size. In addition, the new technique was restricted to the main lower leg excitement, since the strain at contact point could be all the more handily controlled at lower leg in contrast with vertex or neck. In addition, the lower leg feeling would look like the deeply grounded lower leg weber, generally utilized in SCDS clinical appraisal. For effortlessness, the test portrayed exhaustively underneath has been named lower leg audiometry (AA) [4].

The control subjects were incorporated provided that introducing typical hearing edges for age, with practically no set of experiences of pertinent sound vestibular, otologic, or clinical problems. They were age-and sex-coordinated with the case bunch. The record side in controls addressed the side which on the other hand returned the best AA limit for every particular boost recurrence. Subsequently, the non-list side in controls was the side that gave the more terrible hearing limit for each tried recurrence. In this sense, the file side (the inverse for the non-list side) may have moved ipsilateral or contra laterally as for the animated lower leg for boosts at various frequencies [5].

By this methodology, the review allowed to think about the AA edges at the suggestive/more suggestive ear in SCDS patient with the best between the two AA limits got for each tried recurrence in control subjects. At long last, when the lower leg feelings gave similar edge on the two sides, the file/non-record side was doled out haphazardly [6].

Further, on the off chance that there was no reaction at the most elevated improvement power, a substitute worth surpassing 5 dB was utilized. Some subject a superior hearing edge to the contralateral ear, particularly in SCDS patients tried at non-file side. This is independent to the applied contralateral veiling. This viewpoint was passed judgment on pertinent in a clinical viewpoint; thusly, the reaction lateralization was added as a variable in the examination: the subject was approached to communicate which was the prevalent side for vibrational hearing, ipsilateral to the invigorated lower leg, contralateral to excitement, or not characterized (unified) [7].


  1. Benamira LZ, Maniakas A, Alzahrani M, et al. Common features in patients with superior canal dehiscence declining surgical treatment. J Clin Med Res. 2015;7(5):308-314.
  2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Freden Jansson KJ, Hakansson B, Reinfeldt S, et al.Bone conduction stimulated VEMP using the B250 transducer. Med Devices. 2021;14:225-237.
  4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Pisano DV, Niesten MEF, Merchant SN, et al. The effect of superior semicircular canal dehiscence on intracochlear sound pressures. Audiol Neurootol. 2012;17(5):338-348.
  6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Sohmer H. Soft tissue conduction: Review, mechanisms, and implications.. Trends Hear. 2017;21:4087.
  8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. Songer JE, Rosowski JJ. A mechano-acoustic model of the effect of superior canal dehiscence on hearing in chinchilla. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;122(2):943-951.
  10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  11. Stenfelt S. Investigation of mechanisms in bone conduction hyperacusis with third window pathologies based on model predictions. Front Neurol. 2020;11:966.
  12. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  13. Ward BK, Carey JP, Minor LB. Superior canal dehiscence syndrome: Lessons from the first 20 years. Front Neurol. 2017;8:177.
  14. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App