Comparative study reveals that low-level laser therapy is more effective than Ginkgo biloba in treating chronic tinnitus, suggesting a superior non-invasive option.
Background Tinnitus is the perception of sound without an external source and affects about 10–15% of the population, with 20% seeking medical attention. It is often associated with noise exposure, which can trigger cochlear changes. The condition is multifactorial, and despite various management strategies, no universal therapy exists. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been introduced as a treatment for cochlear dysfunction and has shown promise in improving symptoms of chronic tinnitus. Ginkgo biloba extract (EGb 761®), derived from Ginkgo biloba leaves, has also demonstrated beneficial effects by reducing tinnitus-related manifestations in experimental models. Objectives This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of LLLT and Ginkgo biloba in treating chronic tinnitus. Patients and methods A total of 100 patients with tinnitus were enrolled and randomly divided into two equal groups. Group 1 ( n = 50) received low-level laser therapy transmeatally (650 nm wavelength, 50 mW output, three sessions weekly for 1 month), and group 2 ( n = 50) received oral Ginkgo biloba (120–240 mg/day) for 1 month. All patients underwent detailed clinical evaluation, audiological assessment (pure tone audiometry, tympanometry, acoustic reflexes), and completed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) questionnaire before and after treatment. Results Both groups showed significant improvement in hearing thresholds at 500 Hz and 2000 Hz ( P < 0.001). The mean VAS score decreased from 6.26 ± 2.01 to 3.06 ± 1.81 in group 1 and from 6.26 ± 1.98 to 4.78 ± 2.4 in group 2, with group 1 showing greater improvement ( P < 0.001). Transient vertigo was more common in the Ginkgo group (22%) than in the laser group (2%), while transient tinnitus loudness occurred more in the laser group (36%). Conclusion Both LLLT and Ginkgo biloba effectively reduced tinnitus symptoms; however, LLLT proved superior, being non-invasive, well-tolerated, low-cost, and associated with minimal side effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kadah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: