4.3 Article

Temporary threshold shift after noise exposure in hypobaric hypoxia at high altitude: results of the ADEMED expedition 2011

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-021-01715-w

Keywords

Noise; Hearing loss; Hypoxia; High altitude; Acclimatization; Temporary threshold shift

Funding

  1. Projekt DEAL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

White noise exposure at high altitude poses a higher risk for noise-induced hearing loss, despite acclimatization increasing arterial oxygen saturation, it does not offer sufficient protection for the inner ear. Therefore, protective devices are recommended at altitudes above 1500 meters when noise levels exceed 75 dB, and should be used definitively above 80 dB to consider individual reactions to hypobaric hypoxia at high altitude.
Objectives To evaluate whether there is an increased risk for noise-induced hearing loss at high altitude rsp. in hypobaric hypoxia. Methods Thirteen volunteers got standard audiometry at 125, 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000, 3000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz before and after 10 min of white noise at 90 dB. The system was calibrated for the respective altitude. Measurements were performed at Kathmandu (1400 m) and at Gorak Shep (5300 m) (Solo Khumbu/Nepal) after 10 days of acclimatization while on trek. Temporary threshold shift (TTS) was analyzed by descriptive statistics and by factor analysis. Results TTS is significantly more pronounced at high altitudes. Acclimatization does not provide any protection of the inner ear, although it increases arterial oxygen saturation. Conclusion The thresholds beyond which noise protection is recommended (> 80 dB) or necessary (> 85 dB) are not sufficient at high altitudes. We suggest providing protective devices above an altitude of 1500 m (ear threshold altitude) when noise level is higher than 75 dB and using them definitively above 80 dB. This takes the individual reaction on hypobaric hypoxia at high altitude into account.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available