4.7 Article

Comparing the Clinical Manifestations of Bell's Palsy between Pre-COVID-19 Pandemic and COVID-19 Pandemic Periods

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12041700

Keywords

COVID-19; Bell's palsy; comparison

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Contrary to expectations, the study found no differences in the clinical features or prognosis of Bell's palsy cases during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to those occurring before COVID-19.
Background: COVID-19 has been shown to affect the onset and severity of various diseases. We examined whether the clinical characteristics of Bell's palsy differed between before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: From January 2005 to December 2021, 1839 patients were diagnosed and treated for Bell's palsy at Kyung Hee University Hospital. These patients were divided into a pre-COVID period group and COVID-19 period group, and the clinical characteristics of the two groups were compared. Results: There were 1719 patients in the pre-COVID period group and 120 patients in the COVID-19 period group. There were no between-group differences in sex (p = 0.103) or in the presence of underlying hypertension (p = 0.632) or diabetes (p = 0.807). Regarding symptoms, there were no significant between-group differences in otalgia, dizziness, tinnitus, hyperacusis, or hearing loss (p = 0.304, p = 0.59, p = 0.351, p = 0.605, and p = 0.949). There were also no significant between-group differences in electroneurography results (p = 0.398), electromyography results (p = 0.331), House-Brackmann Grade at visit (p = 0.634), or recovery rate after treatment (p = 0.525). Conclusions: Contrary to our expectation that Bell's palsy cases during the COVID-19 pandemic would show different clinical features than those occurring before COVID-19, the present study found no differences in clinical features or prognosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available