Use of Socioeconomic Demographic Data in Studies on Pediatric Unilateral Hearing Loss: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Social determinants of health (SDOH) (healthcare access and quality, education access and quality, socioeconomic status, social and cultural context, neighborhood and built environment) ( Healthy People 2030 ) have been shown to impact a wide range of health-related outcomes and access to care. Given the medical and nonmedical costs associated with children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL), the varied insurance coverage for hearing healthcare services, and the differences in hearing aid utilization rates between children of different sociodemographic classes, the sociodemographic information of children with UHL enrolled in research studies should be collected to ensure the generalizability of hearing healthcare interventions. Therefore, the objective of this scoping review is to assess the reporting of SDOH data for participants in studies of pediatric UHL and its comparison to population trends. DESIGN: Two searches of published literature were conducted by a qualified medical librarian. Two reviewers then evaluated all candidate articles. Study inclusion parameters were from 2010 to present, peer-reviewed studies with prospective study design, and participant population including children (age 0 to 18 years old) with UHL. RESULTS: Two literature searches using PubMed Medline and Embase found 442 and 3058 studies each for review. After abstract and paper review, 87 studies were included in final qualitative review, with 22 of these studies reporting race distribution of participants, 15 reporting insurance status or family income, and 12 reporting the maternal education level. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic data are not commonly reported in research studies of children with UHL. In reported samples, research participants are more likely to have private insurance and higher family income compared with overall population distribution. These demographic biases may affect the generalizability of study results to all children with UHL. Further evaluation is warranted to evaluate whether participant recruitment affects outcomes that reflect the overall population.

Cochlear Nerve Deficiency in Pediatric Unilateral Hearing Loss and Asymmetric Hearing Loss.

INTRODUCTION: The rates of cochlear nerve abnormalities and cochlear malformations in pediatric unilateral hearing loss (UHL) are conflicting in the literature, with important implications on management. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of cochlear nerve deficiency (CND) in pediatric subjects with UHL or asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of pediatric subjects <18 years of age evaluated for UHL or AHL with fine-cut heavily T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between January 2014 and October 2019 (n = 291) at a tertiary referral center was conducted. MRI brain and computed tomography temporal bone were reviewed for the presence of inner ear malformations and/or CND. Status of the ipsilateral cochlear nerve and inner ear was evaluated. Pure tone average (PTA) at 500, 1,000 and 2,000 Hz was assessed. RESULTS: 204 subjects with UHL and 87 subjects with AHL were included. CND (aplasia or hypoplasia) was demonstrated in 61 pediatric subjects with UHL (29.9%) and 10 with AHL (11.5%). Ipsilateral cochlear malformations were noted in 25 subjects with UHL (12.3%) and 11 with AHL (12.6%), and ipsilateral vestibular malformations in 23 (11.3%) and 12 (13.8%) ears, respectively. Median PTA was statistically significantly higher in ears with CND (98.33) than ears with normal nerves (90.84). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Imaging demonstrated a high incidence of inner ear malformations, particularly CND, in pediatric subjects with UHL. Auditory findings indicated CND cannot be ruled out by thresholds alone as some CND ears did demonstrate measurable hearing. Radiologic evaluation by MRI should be performed in all patients within this population to guide counseling and management of hearing loss based on etiology, with implications on candidacy for cochlear implantation.

Pediatric Single-Sided Deafness: A Review of Prevalence, Radiologic Findings, and Cochlear Implant Candidacy.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the prevalence, imaging characteristics, and cochlear implant candidacy of pediatric patients with single-sided deafness (SSD). METHODS: An audiometric database of patients evaluated at a large tertiary academic medical center was retrospectively queried to identify pediatric patients (<18 years old) with SSD, defined as severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing in the other. Medical records of identified patients were reviewed to characterize the prevalence, etiology, and cochlear implant candidacy of pediatric patients with SSD. RESULTS: We reviewed audiometric data obtained from 1993 to 2018 for 52,878 children at our institution. 191 (0.36%) had the diagnosis of SSD. Cochlear nerve deficiency (either hypoplasia or aplasia) diagnosed on MRI and/or CT was the most common etiology of SSD and was present in 22 of 88 (25%) pediatric SSD patients with available imaging data. 70 of 106 (66%) pediatric SSD patients with available imaging had anatomy amenable to cochlear implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric SSD is a rare condition and the most common etiology based on radiology is cochlear nerve deficiency. High resolution imaging of the temporal bone is essential to determine cochlear nerve morphology prior to consideration of cochlear implantation.

Prevalence of Single-Sided Deafness in the United States.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to obtain a reliable estimate of single-sided deafness (SSD) prevalence in the adult U.S. METHODS: A cross-sectional national epidemiologic study was performed. Participants were included from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Each cohort includes a nationally representative sample of approximately 5,000 noninstitutionalized civilians. Subjects 20 years old and over with audiometric testing were included. SSD was defined as normal hearing (pure-tone average [PTA] of ≤25 dB) in one ear and severe or worse hearing (PTA > 70 dB) in the other, using both three- and four-frequency PTA definition. Prevalence was measured as a raw number (n) and percentage (%) of the sample. Weighted estimates of prevalence were calculated based on the 2019 U.S. population census. RESULTS: An estimated 345,064 Americans (estimated prevalence of 0.14%, 95% confidence interval = 0.08-0.24) had SSD. SSD was more prevalent in individuals 60 to 79 years of age (estimated 155,917 U.S. adults, prevalence of 0.25%). A higher prevalence of SSD was noted among women compared to men (215,430 U.S. adult women, prevalence of 0.17% vs. 131,726 U.S. adult men, prevalence of 0.11%). Using a three-frequency PTA definition resulted in an estimated prevalence of 0.11%. Finally, 27% of adults with SSD reported having "good" or "excellent" hearing despite their hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of SSD in the United States is estimated at 0.11%-0.14% (271,122 to 345,064 adults), depending on PTA definition used. These individuals could potentially benefit from auditory rehabilitation, including cochlear implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 132:1652-1656, 2022.

Fatigue in Children With Unilateral and Bilateral Hearing Loss.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) experience similar levels fatigue as children with bilateral hearing loss (BHL) or normal-hearing (NH). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Two tertiary care otolaryngology practices. PARTICIPANTS: Children, 5 to 18 years old, with UHL or BHL and their parents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PedsQL Multidimensional Fatigue Scale (MFS) survey. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 90/384 (23%). Mean age of child participants was 10.7 years old (standard deviations [SD] 3.1); 38 (42%) were men and 52 (58%) were women. Sixty-nine (77%) children had UHL, 21 (23%) had BHL. Children with BHL (mean 65, SD 21) and UHL (mean 75, SD 17) reported greater levels of fatigue than children with NH (BHL difference -15, 95% confidence interval [CI] -25 to -5; UHL difference -6, 95% CI -13-1.2). Parent-proxy reports for children with BHL (mean 67, SD 20) and UHL (mean 76, SD 20) reported more fatigue than NH (BHL difference -22, 95% CI -33 to -12; UHL difference -14; 95% CI -20 to -8). Sub-section scores for general, sleep, and cognitive fatigue were higher for children with BHL and UHL than NH. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Children with UHL and BHL reported significantly more fatigue than children with NH, and children with BHL reported more fatigue than UHL. These findings underscore the need to increase auditory rehabilitation and educational resources for children with UHL and support the use of the PedsQL MFS questionnaire as a measure to follow disability experienced by children with HL as they undergo hearing rehabilitation.

Factors Associated With Unilateral Hearing Loss and Impact on Communication in US Adults.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the factors associated with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) and its impact on communication in US adults. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Nationally representative sample of US adults. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2011-2012 and 2015-2016 National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey, in which participants aged 20 to 69 years completed an audiometric evaluation (n = 8138). UHL was defined as a speech frequency pure-tone average ≥25 dB in the worse hearing ear and <25 dB in the better hearing ear. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between UHL and relevant factors. RESULTS: The prevalence of UHL was 8.1% (95% CI, 7.3%-9.0%) in US adults. Factors associated with UHL included older age, male sex, white race, lower level of education, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and off-work noise exposure. Among adults with UHL, 40% (95% CI, 32%-48%) reported subjective trouble with hearing, a rate higher than the 12% (95% CI, 11%-14%) among normal-hearing adults. After adjusting for relevant factors, adults with UHL were more likely to report difficulties with following conversations with noise (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.5) and frustration when talking to family and friends (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6). Higher levels of communication difficulties were observed with worsening level of UHL. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with UHL report significant communication difficulties in comparison to normal-hearing adults. Further research is needed to understand the psychosocial impact of UHL on adults and ways to improve communication support for adults with UHL.

Quality of life of children treated for unilateral hearing loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatments' consequences for unilateral hearing loss in children. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD42018109417). The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ISRCTN and ClinicalTrials databases were searched between September 2018 and May 2019. Articles were screened and data were collected independently by two authors following the Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the National Institute of Health, USA tool and considering the risk of confounding. In the studies with the lowest risk of bias, a meta-analysis was conducted. INTERVENTIONS: Validated hearing rehabilitation devices. PATIENTS: 6-15 years old children with moderate to profound unilateral hearing loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary study outcome was children's quality of life. Academic performances were studied as an additional outcome. RESULTS: 731 unique articles were identified from the primary search. Of these, 18 articles met the Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes and Study design selection criteria. In the eight studies with the lowest risk of bias, two meta-analysis were conducted. There was not enough data on academic results to conduct a meta-analysis. In 73 children included in a fixed effect meta-analysis (two studies), no effect of treatment could be shown (g=-0.20, p=0.39). In 61 children included in a random-effect meta-analysis (six studies), a strong positive effect of hearing treatment on quality of life was demonstrated (g=1.32, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of unilateral hearing loss seems to improve children's quality of life. Further research is needed to identify the most effective treatment and its corresponding indications.

Speech and language outcomes in mild-moderate unilateral sensorineural hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of mild-moderate unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USNHL) on speech and language delay (SLD) is not well established. Objectives included (1) determining SLD prevalence in patients with mild-moderate USNHL in comparison to prevalence in the general population and severe-profound USNHL patients and (2) examining speech, language, and auditory function testing (SLAT) results in USNHL patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients with USNHL, classified using pure tone averages (PTA) into mild-moderate (PTA 21-60) and severe-profound (PTA ≥ 61) USNHL groups was conducted. Abnormal SLAT values defined SLD. Prevalence and association of SLD based on USNHL severity was calculated. Onesample binomial tests compared observed frequencies of SLD to reported values. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were identified with USNHL; 34 patients underwent SLAT. SLD frequency for mild-moderate USNHL was 25% (95% CI, 9-49%), higher than the general population rate (5.95%). No statistically significant difference was noted between SLD frequency in mild-moderate versus severe-profound USNHL. There were no significant correlations between SLAT measures and PTA thresholds. CONCLUSION: There was a statistically significant increase in SLD in mild-moderate USNHL compared to the general population. There were no correlations between SLAT measures and PTA thresholds. Children with USNHL need close monitoring of speech, language and auditory development and functioning. Studies with larger sample sizes will help delineate if these findings truly reflect results in children with USNHL.

Modeling Hearing Loss Progression and Asymmetry in the Older Old: A National Population-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: The progression and asymmetry of age-related hearing loss has not been well characterized in those 80 years of age and older because public datasets mask upper extremes of age to protect anonymity. We aim to characterize the progression, severity, and asymmetry of hearing loss in those 80 years of age and older using a representative, national database. METHODS: Cross-sectional, multicentered U.S. epidemiologic analysis using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005 to 2006, 2009 to 2010, and 2011 to 2012 cycles. Subjects included noninstitutionalized, civilian adults aged 80 years and older (n = 621). Federal security clearance was granted to access publicly restricted age data. Outcome measures included pure-tone average (PTA) air conduction thresholds and the 4-frequency PTA. RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty-one subjects were 80 years old or older (mean = 84.2 years, range = 80-104 years), representing 10,600,197 Americans. The average PTA was 38.9 dB (95% confidence interval [CI] = 37.8, 40.0). Hearing loss exhibited constant acceleration across the adult lifespan at a rate of 0.0052 dB/year2 (95% CI = 0.0049, 0.0055). This model predicted mean PTA within 2 dB of accuracy for most ages between 20 and 100 years. From age 80 years to approximately 100 years, the average PTA difference between the better and worse ear was 6.75 dB (95% CI = 5.8, 7.1). This asymmetry was relatively constant (i.e., nonsignificant linear regression coefficient of asymmetry over age = 0.07 [95% CI = -0.01, 0.2]). CONCLUSION: Hearing loss steadily and predictably accelerates across the adult lifespan to at least age 100 years, becoming near universal. These population-level statistics will guide treatment and policy recommendations for hearing health in the older old. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:879-884, 2021.

National representative analysis of unilateral hearing loss and hearing aid usage in South Korea.

A definitive study on the prevalence of adult unilateral hearing loss and hearing aid rehabilitation is lacking in Korea. The purpose of our study was to investigate the prevalence of adult unilateral hearing loss and the factors associated with hearing aid use in patients with unilateral hearing loss in South Korea. We obtained data from 2009 to 2012 from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (KNHANES), a cross-sectional, nationwide and population-based survey in the Republic of Korea. We analyzed the prevalence and associated factors of unilateral hearing loss and hearing aid adoption by univariable and multivariable analysis. Unilateral hearing loss was defined as pure tone average ≥ 41 dB in the worse hearing ear, and < 41 dB in the other ear assessed at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 kHz. From 2009 to 2012, 33,252 individuals participated in the KNHANES. Among them, the number of patients with unilateral hearing loss was 1632 (5.55%) and the prevalence of hearing aid adoption in unilateral hearing loss was 1.56%. We also compared the factors between hearing aid users and non-users. Occupational status (OR 3.759, 95% CI 1.443-9.804), the hearing threshold in the better ear (OR 1.088, 95% CI 1.029-1.151), and hearing threshold in the worse ear (OR 1.031, 1.005-1.058) were found to affect the adoption of hearing aids. The prevalence of noise exposure at work in hearing aid users was significantly lower than the prevalence of noise exposure at work in those with no hearing aid. The prevalence of hearing aid use in patients with unilateral hearing loss in Korea is very low compared to other countries. Public health education is needed to increase public awareness of unilateral hearing loss, hearing aid adoption and its continued usage. Auditory rehabilitation should be actively recommended to patients with unilateral hearing loss.

Prevalence of permanent neonatal hearing impairment: systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.

Objective: To investigate the variance in reported prevalence rates of permanent neonatal hearing impairment (HI) worldwide.Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on reported prevalence rates of sensorineural and permanent conductive or mixed HI worse than 40 dB in neonates, detected as a result of a screening programme or audiometric study.Study sample: For meta-analysis, 35 articles were selected, 25 from high-income countries and 10 from middle-income countries according to the world bank classification system.Results: The prevalence rate of permanent uni- and bilateral HI worse than 40 dB in neonates varied from 1 to 6 per 1000, the overall prevalence was 2.21 per 1000 [1.71, 2.8]. In NICU populations the prevalence rate was higher with a larger fraction of bilateral cases. Although not significant, prevalence rates were slightly higher in Asia compared to Europe and the number of infants lost to follow-up appeared higher in countries with lower gross national income.Conclusion: Substantial variations exist in prevalence rates of neonatal permanent HI across countries and regions. There is a strong need for more data from low-income countries to identify demographic factors that account for this variability in reported prevalence rates. Reporting these data in a uniform way is advocated.

Outcomes of regional-based newborn hearing screening for 35,461 newborns for 5 years in Akita, Japan.

OBJECTIVES: Newborn hearing screening (NHS) has been actively performed since 2001 in Akita, Japan. The NHS coverage rate has increased yearly, and performance has been consistently >90% since 2012. The purpose of this study was to summarize NHS outcomes in the Akita prefecture of Japan and to obtain new insights for from our summarized data for the future. METHODS: A total of 35,461 newborns in hospitals and clinics where hearing screening was performed in Akita from 2012 to 2016 were included. The outcome data of NHS were collected for analysis. RESULTS: The overall screening coverage rate for hearing loss was 94.7%. Of the screened infants, 0.53% received a referral on the 2-stage automated auditory brainstem response (ABR), and 80.4% of referred infants had a check-up at the hospital to receive a diagnostic hearing examination. Finally, the prevalence of bilateral congenital hearing loss was 0.14%, that of bilateral moderate to profound hearing loss was 0.12%, and that of unilateral congenital hearing loss was 0.10%. Furthermore, the average consultation period in infants with risk factors was significantly later than that in infants without risk factors (p = 0.0015). Follow-up for infants diagnosed with normal hearing after diagnostic hearing examination revealed that 4.7% suffered bilateral moderate to profound hearing loss later. This percentage is significantly higher than that of the general group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of bilateral congenital hearing loss was 0.14% in Akita and 0.12% of infants were diagnosed with bilateral moderate to severe hearing loss. Medical personnel should be enlightened regarding the importance of performing hearing diagnostic examinations until 3 months of age. Even if infants were diagnosed with normal hearing after a diagnostic examination, we strongly suggest continuing follow-up until they are able to perform pure tone audiometry with accuracy.

Evidence-Based Practices and Outcomes for Children with Mild and Unilateral Hearing Loss.

Purpose This forum provides an overview of current research and clinical practice for children with mild bilateral or unilateral hearing loss. Historically, there has been ambiguity surrounding the need for intervention in this population. Our goal is to explore the literature on outcomes and treatment so that audiologists, speech-language pathologists, teachers, physicians, and families can be confident in the clinical decision-making process when working with these children. To that end, topics include (a) progression of mild hearing loss in children; (b) the impact of mild or unilateral hearing loss on language, listening, and cognitive abilities; (c) research and reviews on intervention approaches; and (d) listening effort and fatigue in unilateral hearing loss. Conclusion Uncertainty about outcomes and treatment approaches for children with mild or unilateral hearing loss leads to inconsistent intervention and increased developmental risk. We hope that this forum will generate productive discussion among researchers and clinicians to ensure that all children with hearing loss reach their full potential.

Where Do We Go From Here? Some Messages to Take Forward Regarding Children With Mild Bilateral and Unilateral Hearing Loss.

Purpose This epilogue discusses messages that we can take forward from the articles in the forum. A common theme throughout the forum is the ongoing need for research. The forum begins with evidence of potential progressive hearing loss in infants with mild bilateral hearing loss, who may be missed by current newborn hearing screening protocols, and supports the need for consensus regarding early identification in this population. Consensus regarding management similarly is a continuing need. Three studies add to the growing body of evidence that children with mild bilateral or unilateral hearing loss are at risk for difficulties in speech understanding in adverse environments, as well as delays in language and cognition, and that difficulties may persist beyond early childhood. Ambivalence regarding if and when children with mild bilateral or unilateral hearing loss should be fitted with personal amplification also impacts management decisions. Two articles address current evidence and support the need for further research into factors influencing decisions regarding amplification in these populations. A third article examines new criteria to determine hearing aid candidacy in children with mild hearing loss. The final contribution in this forum discusses listening-related fatigue in children with unilateral hearing loss. The absence of research specific to this population is evidence for the need for further investigation. Ongoing research that addresses difficulties experienced by children with mild bilateral and unilateral hearing loss and potential management options can help guide us toward interventions that are specific for the needs of these children.

An Analysis of Risk Factors in Unilateral Versus Bilateral Hearing Loss.

A retrospective review of children with confirmed hearing loss identified through universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS) in Virginia from 2010 to 2014 was conducted in order to compare the incidence of Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) risk factors in children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) to bilateral hearing loss (BHL). Over the 5-year study period, 1004 children (0.20% of all births) developed a confirmed hearing loss, with 544 (51%) children having at least one JCIH risk factor. Overall, 18% of children with confirmed hearing loss initially passed UNHS. Of all children with risk factors, 226 (42%) demonstrated UHL and 318 (58%) had BHL. The most common risk factors for UHL were neonatal indicators (69%), craniofacial anomalies (30%), stigmata of HL syndromes (14%), and family history (14%). The most common risk factors in BHL were neonatal indicators (49%), family history (27%), stigmata of HL syndromes (19%), and craniofacial anomalies (16%). Children with the risk factor for positive family history were more likely to have BHL, while those with craniofacial anomalies were more likely to have UHL (P < .001). Neonatal indicators were the most commonly identified risk factor in both UHL and BHL populations. Children with UHL were significantly more likely to have craniofacial anomalies, while children with BHL were more likely to have a family history of hearing loss. Further studies assessing the etiology underlying the hearing loss and risk factor associations are warranted.

Pain-free survival after vagoglossopharyngeal complex sectioning with or without microvascular decompression in glossopharyngeal neuralgia.

OBJECTIVE: Glossopharyngeal neuralgia (GN) is a rare pain condition in which patients experience paroxysmal, lancinating throat pain. Multiple surgical approaches have been used to treat this condition, including microvascular decompression (MVD), and sectioning of cranial nerve (CN) IX and the upper rootlets of CN X, or a combination of the two. The aim of this study was to examine the long-term quality of life and pain-free survival after MVD and sectioning of the CN X/IX complex. METHODS: A combined retrospective chart review and a quality-of-life telephone survey were performed to collect demographic and long-term outcome data. Quality of life was assessed by means of a questionnaire based on a combination of the Barrow Neurological Institute pain intensity scoring criteria and the Brief Pain Inventory-Facial. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to determine pain-free survival. RESULTS: Of 18 patients with GN, 17 underwent sectioning of the CN IX/X complex alone or sectioning and MVD depending on the presence of a compressing vessel. Eleven of 17 patients had compression of CN IX/X by the posterior inferior cerebellar artery, 1 had compression by a vertebral artery, and 5 had no compression. One patient (6%) experienced no immediate pain relief. Fifteen (88%) of 17 patients were pain free at the last follow-up (mean 9.33 years, range 5.16-13 years). One patient (6%) experienced throat pain relapse at 3 months. The median pain-free survival was 7.5 years ± 10.6 months. Nine of 18 patients were contacted by telephone. Of the 17 patients who underwent sectioning of the CN IX/X complex, 13 (77%) patients had short-term complaints: dysphagia (n = 4), hoarseness (n = 4), ipsilateral hearing loss (n = 4), ipsilateral taste loss (n = 2), and dizziness (n = 2) at 2 weeks. Nine patients had persistent side effects at latest follow-up. Eight of 9 telephone respondents reported that they would have the surgery over again. CONCLUSIONS: Sectioning of the CN IX/X complex with or without MVD of the glossopharyngeal nerve is a safe and effective surgical therapy for GN with initial pain freedom in 94% of patients and an excellent long-term pain relief (mean 7.5 years).

[Asymmetric sensorineural hearing impairment in the adult population]. / Asimmetrichnaia sensonevral'naia tugoukhost' vo vzrosloi populiatsii.

The relevance of the problem of a sensorineural hearing loss (ASNL) arises from the necessity of the special approaches to the diagnostics of this condition, the complications accompanying this pathology, and the difficulties encountered in the implementation of the methods designed for hearing rehabilitation of such patients. The objective of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of ASHL among the adult population. The sensorineural impairment of hearing was diagnosed in a total of 2456 (72%) examined patients presenting with hearing loss. To determine the presence of asymmetry of sensorineural hearing loss, we employed three counting techniques allowing (1) to calculate the difference between the average hearing thresholds at four frequencies within the range from 0.5 to 4 kHz (the difference was found to be 15 dB or more in 17% of the patients), (2) to calculate the difference between the degrees of hearing loss in the right and left ears (the difference was documented in 47% of the patients), (3) to calculate the difference between the hearing thresholds at least at a single frequency within the range from 0.125 to 8 kHz (he difference was found to be 15 dB or more in 71% of the patients). When using the third method to characterize asymmetry of hearing impairment, it was identified in most patients (53%) at one or two frequencies. Moreover, there was a large number of the patients (13%) with asymmetry apparent over the entire frequency range. A high degree of threshold asymmetry (in excess of 40 dB) was more often noted in the mid-frequency range. In the majority of the patients, the asymmetry manifested itself as the different degree of bilateral sensorineural hearing impairment (51%) or unilateral sensorineural hearing loss with the normal hearing ability preserved in the contralateral ear (35%). The results of the present study give evidence of the necessity of developing a reliable method for the identification of clinically significant ACNL.

Cross-sectional epidemiology of hearing loss in Australian children aged 11-12 years old and 25-year secular trends.

OBJECTIVE: In a national study of Australian children aged 11-12 years old, we examined the (1) prevalence and characteristics of hearing loss, (2) its demographic risk factors and (3) evidence for secular increases since 1990. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional CheckPoint wave within the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. 1485 children (49.8% retention; 49.7% boys) underwent air-conduction audiometry. Aim 1: hearing loss (≥16 decibels hearing level (dB HL)) was defined in four ways to enable prior/future comparisons: high Fletcher Index (mean of 1, 2 and 4 kHz; primary outcome relevant to speech perception), four-frequency (1, 2, 4 and 8 kHz), lower frequency (1 and 2 kHz) and higher frequency (4 and 8 kHz); aim 2: logistic regression of hearing loss by age, gender and disadvantage index; and aim 3: P for trend examining CheckPoint and reported prevalence in studies arranged by date since 1990. RESULTS: For high Fletcher Index, the prevalence of bilateral and unilateral hearing loss ≥16 dB HL was 9.3% and 13.3%, respectively. Slight losses (16-25 dB HL) were more prevalent than mild or greater (≥26 dB HL) losses (bilateral 8.5% vs 0.8%; unilateral 12.5% vs 0.9%), and lower frequency more prevalent than higher frequency losses (bilateral 11.0% vs 6.9%; unilateral 15.4% vs 11.5%). Demographic characteristics did not convincingly predict hearing loss. Prevalence of bilateral/unilateral lower and higher frequency losses ≥16 dB HL has risen since 1990 (all P for trend <0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Childhood hearing loss is prevalent and has risen since 1990. Future research should investigate the causes, course and impact of these changes.

Comparison between Bilateral and Unilateral Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

BACKGROUND: Bilateral sudden sensorineural hearing loss (BSSHL) is rare and assumed to be a different clinical entity compared to unilateral SSHL (USSHL). This study examined the differences between the idiopathic BSSHL and USSHL. METHODS: Forty-six sequential BSSHL patients (Se-BSSHL) and 68 simultaneous BSSHL (Si-BSSHL) were consecutively admitted between June 2008 and December 2015. Two sets of patients served as control groups: (1) USSHL patients with healthy contralateral ear and (2) USSHL patients with contralateral preexisting hearing loss (USSHLwCHL). We retrospectively analyzed differences among four cohorts using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis test, Welch's t-test, and Chi-square test as appropriate before and after propensity score matching (PSM) based on age, gender, and body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: The prevalence of idiopathic BSSHL was 8.6% (114/1329) among the total SSHL patients. In the total cohort, USSHL patients tended to be younger, female, and tended to have lower BMI, renal parameters, and total cholesterol in addition to higher high-density lipoprotein compared to the other three groups. Most routine blood indicators, some coagulation markers, and immunoglobulin M (H = 13.4, P = 0.004) were significantly different among the study groups. After PSM, the major significant differences were found in audiometric characteristics. Si-BSSHL and Se-BSSHL patients demonstrated similar hearing thresholds as USSHL but were significantly better than the USSHLwCHL patients across most frequencies before and after treatment (H = 30.0, P < 0.001 for initial hearing and H = 12.0, P = 0.007 for final hearing). Moreover, the BSSHL patients showed different hearing loss distribution patterns (more descending type, χ2 = 33.8, P = 0.001) with less hearing gain (H = 17.5, P < 0.001) compared to the USSHL patients. CONCLUSIONS: Idiopathic BSSHL is a relatively rare subtype of SSHL with a higher rate of descending audiogram type and inferior hearing outcome rather than being classified as a completely different disease entity compared to USSHL.

Prevalence of adult unilateral hearing loss and hearing aid use in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of unilateral hearing loss (UHL) in adults has not been well characterized. The objectives of this study are to determine the prevalence of UHL in U.S. adults and its treatment with hearing aids using a nationally representative study. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional national epidemiologic study (n = 6,242). METHODS: Subjects ≥ 18 years old with audiometric testing in the 2005 to 2006, 2009 to 2010, and 2011 to 2012 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study were included. UHL was defined as normal hearing (≤25 decibels hearing level [dB HL] pure tone average [PTA]) in one ear and at least mild hearing loss (>25 dB HL PTA) in the other ear. Hearing aid usage was defined by at least 5 hours per week (2005-2006) or at least seldom (2009-2012) use. Sampling weights were utilized to ensure generalizability to the U.S. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of UHL in adult Americans was 7.2% (95% confidence interval 6.1%-8.6%), with 5.7% (4.8%-6.7%) having mild and 1.5% (0.1%-2.1%) with moderate-or-worse UHL; nearly one-third of the latter reported trouble hearing. The prevalence of hearing aid usage in those with UHL was 2.0% (0.6%-6.7%). Of those with mild UHL, 1.4% (0.2%-8.0%) used hearing aids. Of those with moderate UHL, 4.2% (0.1%-22%) used hearing aids. Among those with UHL and also at least moderate subjective difficulty hearing, only 11% wore hearing aids. CONCLUSION: UHL is common among U.S. adults. Hearing aid usage is very low, even when there is perceived handicap. Public health education is needed to increase awareness of and auditory rehabilitation for UHL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2. Laryngoscope, 128:1681-1686, 2018.