Keywords
Ménière's disease - intratympanic gentamicin - vertigo
Introduction
Ménière's disease is characterized by episodic vertigo, tinnitus, aural fullness and
fluctuating hearing loss. The treatment of patients with Ménière's disease is usually
directed at the most disabling symptom, which is incapacitating vertigo. Medical therapy
usually regulates the symptoms in most patients with this disease. Surgical intervention
or intratympanic gentamicin is offered to those who are resistant to the medical therapy,
which, ideally, should control the vertigo while preserving the hearing level and
balance. The side effects of gentamicin are well-know. The risks of vestibular and
cochlear toxicity are related to the duration of the therapy, the total or cumulative
dose, exposure, individual susceptibility, renal function, the patient's age, and
associated inner ear problems, like noise exposure, autoimmune disorders etc. Intratympanic
gentamicin for the treatment of severe vertigo was reported by Lange.[1] The initial approach was complete vestibular ablation to control the vertigo. However,
with this approach, the hearing was at a greatest risk. Over the decades, several
modifications have emerged regarding the concentration of the gentamicin solution,
the frequency of injections and the method of delivery. This study aims to review
the audiovestibular response related to the effect of the drug to control the vertigo
and the protocols that are necessarily modified over the years from “medical labyrinthectomy”
or “chemical labyrinthectomy” to preservation of vestibular function.
Review of the Literature
A review of the literature on the audiovestibular impact of intratympanic gentamicin
for intractable unilateral Meniere's disease was conducted, with data extracted only
from articles written in English. The articles were identified by means of a search
in the PubMed database using the keywords Meniere and intratympanic or transtympanic gentamicin, which yielded 205 articles. Total 144 articles were reviewed for the study after
we excluded those that were technical reports, those based on experimental animal
studies, those that focused on outcomes other than vertigo (tinnitus or aural fullness),
those with delivery methods other than tympanic membrane injection, and those with
bilateral cases. Comparative studies (intratympanic gentamicin versus sac surgery
or medical therapy etc.) were included if the outcome measures for the effect of gentamicin
were clear. The search only included articles published between 1989 and 2015. If
there was more than one article by the same author(s) or institution, only the most
recent one matching the aforementioned criteria and those that were not overlapping
were included. The studies were classified into two main groups: hearing monitoring
and signs of vestibular impact. The first group was sub classified into three groups:
pure tone audiogram and speech discrimination; electrocochleography; and otoacoustic
emission. The second group was sub classified into eight groups: spontaneous and head-shaking
nystagmus; caloric response; head thrust test; subjective visual vertical; vestibular-evoked
myogenic potentials; dynamic visual acuity; posturography; and rotatory chair for
comparative review in terms of the audiovestibular impact of intratympanic gentamicin.
Final Comments
In conclusion, the inner ear toxicity of gentamicin follows an order. Secretory dark
cells of the vestibule are the first to be damaged, followed by the vestibular neuroepithelium
and, finally, the hair cells of the organ of Corti are destroyed. The dose in each
application and the time interval between two doses are two critical issues to be
solved. It is likely that the initial reversible effect of gentamicin on both the
vestibule and cochlea turns eventually to an irreversible stage due to the accumulation
of consecutive doses in the inner ear because of the slow clearance of gentamicin.
We cannot manipulate the amount of gentamicin in the inner ear, which is apparently
related to several conditions, like round window penetrance, tubal patency, histology
of the middle ear mucosa etc. However, we can conduct the whole treatment by manipulating
the frequency of injections, always considering the vestibular and audiologic signs.
Titration methods or multiple injections on a daily basis can be preferred if the
patients have profound or non-serviceable hearing, since these methods have significant
incidence of hearing loss.[31] Treatment protocols with a frequency of injections not shorter than once a week
or those with injections on a monthly basis as “needed” provide the same level of
vertigo control with better preservation of hearing.[32] The caloric test is a good indicator of loss of function in patients with Ménière's
disease. However, the aim of the intratympanic gentamicin treatment should not be
the complete ablation of the vestibular function with absence of caloric response.
Besides, caloric testing is not an ideal tool to analyze the correlation between vertigo
control and the effect of gentamicin as compared with gain asymmetry of the vestibulo-ocular
reflex.[33] Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials and the head thrust test are more reliable
than other vestibular tests for the follow-up of patients receiving gentamicin treatment.