Quality assessment of patient-reported outcome measures for patients with multiple ear complaints.

INTRODUCTION: There is an increased demand for well-validated PROMs in otology. This study will systematically assess the methodological quality of all published patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) for patients with multiple ear complaints and to identify the best suitable PROM for use by clinicians treating patients with multiple ear complaints. METHODS: An extensive systematic mapping review of all otology questionnaires was performed to identify questionnaires measuring multiple ear complaints. The 'Consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement Instruments' (COSMIN) checklists were used to evaluate the quality of the questionnaire by two researchers. The worst item score per aspect of the methodological assessment counted. RESULTS: Twelve multiple-complaint questionnaires were included in the study for quality assessment. Ten questionnaires were disease-specific (COMQ-12, CES, ZCMEI-21, MD-POSI, PAN-QOL, ETDQ-7, MDOQ, GYSSCDQ, COMOT-15 and DEU-MDDS). Two questionnaires were ear domain-specific (OQUA and COQOL). The majority of multiple complaint questionnaires lacked good design with concept elicitation and patient involvement. CONCLUSION: For the majority of questionnaires, the quality assessment was inadequate as only a few authors consulted with patients affected by the complaints in the development. Modifications of earlier versions of PROMS or combinations of multiple questionnaires lead to ongoing (cross-cultural) validation of these questionnaires albeit mediocre design and validation. The two domain-specific questionnaires are the COQOL and OQUA, both with adequate quality but different focus. COQOL to quantify the quality of life and OQUA to measure and evaluate the severity and impact of ear complaints. [Correction added on 26 January 2024, after first online publication: In the preceding sentence, the spelling of the abbreviation COQOL has been corrected in this version.].

Management of the brachial plexus in head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The brachial plexus is an important anatomical structure that is regularly encountered by head and neck surgeons and radiation oncologists. Surgical or radiation-induced brachial plexus injury have great impact on arm function and quality of life. Anatomical variations and management of the brachial plexus in head and neck cancer treatment are discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: The brachial plexus consists of spinal roots from C5-C8 and T1. The most prevalent anatomical variations in brachial plexus anatomy include the prefixed brachial plexus (additional contribution from C4) in 11%, the roots of C5 and C6 piercing the belly of the anterior scalene muscle in 6.8%, and presence of the scalenus minimus muscle in 4.1-46%. Due to its location, the brachial plexus is at risk of inadvertent division or neuropraxia during surgical procedures such as neck dissection or robot-assisted transaxillary thyroid surgery (RATS). In case of inadvertent division, nerve reconstruction surgery is warranted and may lead to improved function. The risk of radiation-induced brachial plexus injury is dose-dependent and occurs in approximately 12-22%. Currently, no successful treatment options exist for radiation-induced injury. SUMMARY: Knowledge of anatomical variations is important for head and neck surgeons to minimize the risk of brachial plexus injury. Limiting radiation therapy dose to the brachial plexus is desirable to decrease the risk of brachial plexus injury.

Questionnaires in otology: a systematic mapping review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in assessing the quality of health care from a patient perspective and are increasingly used by otologists. However, selecting the right questionnaire has proven to be a difficult and time-consuming task. To facilitate this process, we will provide a comprehensive overview of existing questionnaires. METHODS: A systematic literature search has been conducted on August 26, 2019, using the EMBASE and PubMed medical databases. 13,345 unique records were extracted. Questionnaires addressing any otologic complaint (tinnitus, hearing loss, earache, otorrhoea, and ear-related pressure sensation, vertigo, itch, or dysgeusia) were identified. All questionnaires were evaluated for eligibility by two independent researchers. Inclusion criteria were adult population, closed-ended questions, English language of the questionnaire, and the availability of the original article describing the development of the instrument or a validation paper describing the validation process written in English. OBJECTIVE: Create a comprehensive overview of all validated closed-ended otology questionnaires for adults and demonstrate their basic characteristics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The number of questionnaires in English literature for the adult population, subdivided per symptom and target population. RESULTS: A total of 155 unique questionnaires were selected: 33 tinnitus questionnaires, 23 vertigo questionnaires, 84 hearing loss questionnaires, and 15 multiple complaint questionnaires. A protocol for further questionnaire comparison is presented. DISCUSSION: Two separate sequential searches were needed to identify unique questionnaires and to identify their development/validation paper. Although many ear diseases create multiple symptoms, the majority of the questionnaires were symptom specific. CONCLUSION: Many questionnaires concerning ear-related symptoms exist and predominantly concern hearing loss, vertigo, or tinnitus. Only a few questionnaires cover the multiple complaints that ear diseases can create. The presented overview is the most comprehensive overview of otology questionnaires in literature to date. It will serve as a basis for questionnaire selection by professionals and could serve as a protocol for questionnaire selection in other fields. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017058155.

A Critical Look Into Stapedotomy Learning Curve: Influence of Patient Characteristics and Different Criteria Defining Success.

PURPOSE: To evaluate stapedotomy learning curve with cumulative summation methodology using different success criteria (ie, air-bone gap [ABG] ≤10 dB, ABG ≤15 dB, restoration of interaural symmetry, or hearing threshold gain >20 dB), and to assess patient characteristics influencing or modifying the learning curve. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of primary and revision stapedotomy cases performed by surgeon 1 (S1, n = 78) and surgeon 2 (S2, n = 85). RESULTS: Using the classic criterion for a successful stapedotomy (ABG ≤10 dB), patients with preoperative ABG >34 dB were associated with unsuccessful procedures (S1 P = .02; S2 P = .07). Revision surgery was associated with unsuccessful outcomes (S1 P = .005; S2 P = .0012). Cumulative summation plots using different criteria did not show a linear trend of association between stapedotomy success and number of operations, but preoperative characteristics of the patients who underwent stapedotomy significantly influenced the plots. Cumulative summation plots showed an initial increasing tendency with improving results, but when ear surgeons got more skilled, they operated on more complex cases (ie, patients with higher preoperative ABG or revision stapedotomy) and they could not meet the success criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative summation plots do not seem useful to evaluate the stapedotomy learning curve, as they do not correctly deal with heterogeneous case series. The increasing complexity of the stapedotomy patients during the surgeons' career impacts on the outcome of stapedotomy and confounds the evaluation of the growing skills of the surgeon. Stapedotomy audiological success rates are strongly influenced by the success criteria used.

The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam: A generic patient-reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. Validation, reliability and responsiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the construct validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam (OQUA). DESIGN: Multicentre, longitudinal study in 2 separate cohorts of patients visiting an ENT surgeon via an online survey programme. SETTING: Tertiary ENT clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Cohort 1 consisted of patients at their first visit at an ENT outpatient clinic with an ear complaint. Cohort 2 consisted of patients who underwent surgery, with a 3-month follow-up post-surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Construct validity: Hypothesis testing, internal consistency and inter-item correlation. Reliability: Test-retest reliability. The construct approach was used for assessing responsiveness. Hypotheses were formulated based on the association between the OQUA and Glasgow Health Status Inventory (GHSI) or Global Rating Scale (GRS). RESULTS: Construct validity: The correlation between the individual items in the impact domain ranged from 0.424 to 0.737. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit. As expected, the OQUA impact showed strong relationships with GHSI total and general scale. Reliability: The test-retest reliability coefficient ranged from 0.541 to 0.838. Responsiveness: All hypotheses were conformed. As expected, the change score of the OQUA showed good correlation between OQUA impact and GHSI and moderate correlation between the GRS and OQUA complaints. CONCLUSION: The OQUA has 8 complaint domains (earache, pressure sensation, itching, tinnitus, hearing loss, ear discharge, loss of taste and dizziness) and 1 impact domain. Each domain results in one score of 0-100. The OQUA shows good results for construct validity, (test-retest) reliability and responsiveness, supporting the potential benefit for the patient with an ear complaint visiting the ENT surgeon. The extensive validation furthermore confirms a certified generic otology PROM with an impact and a complaints' part, to be used in different types of otologic interventions and patient groups.