Background and Aim: Tinnitus is the consciousness of sound that arises in the ear or head without any external sound origin. The efficacies of transmeatal low-level laser irradiation for tinnitus treatment were reported before. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of low level laser therapy on tinnitus and ECochG and DPOAEs parameters.
Materials and Methods: The study design was prospective, quasi experimental. This investigation conducted on 16 ears (10 patients) with disabling tinnitus. All patients underwent ENT examination, complete audiological evaluation, tinnitus study, ECochG and DPOAEs, and finally completing tinnitus data sheet. The results were compared before and after irradiation.
Results: Means of tinnitus loudness (LMT) and CAP amplitudes were significant different before and after irradiation (p<0.005). There was no any other significant difference before and after low level laser irradiation in subjective loudness, pitch matching annoyance grade of tinnitus and DPOAEs and other ECochG parameters.
Conclusion: Transmeatal low-power laser irradiation with 200 mW seems not to be effective for treatment of tinnitus. This paper is the research brief report. In clinical point of view, this study should be repeated with a greater sample size although our results were statistically important.

Background and Aim: It is not known how electrocochleography components of action potentials (AP) and summating potentials (SP) are changed in response to CE-chirp stimulus using extra-tympanic electrodes. This study was done for comparing summating potentials and action potentials specifications in response to CE-chirp and click stimuli.

Methods: Electrocochleography components of action potentials and summating potentials were recorded in 16 normal hearing subjects (8 men and 8 women) aged 22-30 years (mean: 26.7 with SD 2.5 years) with audiometric (250-8000 Hz) hearing thresholds of 15 dB HL or better in response to click and CE-chirp stimulus at 90 dB nHL. Amplitude, duration, latency and area of summating potentials and action potentials and SP/AP amplitude and area ratios were compared.

Results: Among the measured parameters, action potentials amplitude in response to CE-chirp stimulus (0.41 with SD 0.26 µV ) was significantly smaller than action potentials amplitude in response to click (0.61 with SD 0.29 µV ) stimulus (p<0.005). Relative frequency of detecting summating potentials in response to CE-chirp (68.7%) was lower than (100%) click (p<0.005).

Conclusion: Recording electrocochleography component of summating potentials and action potentials with CE-chirp stimulus at high intensity level in normal hearing individuals shows no advantage over click stimulus. Small amplitude of summating potentials as a major problem of extra-tympanic electrocochleography cannot be solved using CE-chirp stimulus.