Patient and clinician experiences with the multidisciplinary single-day cochlear implant selection (MSCS) protocol.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the MSCS (Multidisciplinary Single-day Cochlear Implant Selection) protocol with a primary focus on sustaining or enhancing patient satisfaction throughout the cochlear implant selection process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following the implementation of the new selection protocol, where all selection appointments take place on the same day, we surveyed 37 individuals who underwent the process. Twenty adhered to the standard procedure, while 17 followed the MSCS protocol. We also gathered feedback from seven out of eight involved healthcare providers. This method enabled us to evaluate the protocol's effectiveness in maintaining patient satisfaction and ensuring staff contentment with care delivery within a condensed timeframe. RESULTS: Patient responses showed slight variations in average scores without statistical significant differences, indicating comparable satisfaction between the MSCS pathway and the standard protocol. The majority of patients preferred the MSCS protocol, with none of the MSCS participants opting for appointments spread over multiple days. Healthcare practitioners of the CI center also displayed similar or increased satisfaction levels with the MSCS protocol. CONCLUSION: The adoption of the MSCS in daily clinical care has led to a decrease in patient appointment times without sacrificing patient satisfaction. Additionally, the majority of individuals actively choose the MSCS protocol. Among those who have directly experienced it, there is unanimous preference for the consolidated appointments over spreading them across multiple days. Professionals within the CI team express equal satisfaction with both the new and old protocols, indicating that the reduction in patient time does not diminish overall satisfaction.

Pilot study of a multidisciplinary single-day cochlear implant selection protocol.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore and introduce the potential of a MSCS (Multidisciplinary Single-day Cochlear Implant Selection) protocol. The primary objectives of this pilot were to reduce the duration between referral and surgery, minimize hospital visits and decrease the time healthcare professionals dedicate to the cochlear implant (CI) selection process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We established a pilot program at the CI center of the Erasmus MC, a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands, with the goal of improving and shorten the selection process. We evaluated our pilot, including 15 CI candidates, and conducted a retrospective analysis for time and cost savings. RESULTS: The results showed that the pilot of the MSCS protocol significantly reduced the length of the CI selection phase (84 days vs 1; standard intake vs MSCS protocol) and the number of hospital visits (6 vs 2 visits; standard vs MSCS protocol), resulting in less travel time and lower costs for the CI candidates. The total time of professionals spend on patients was also reduced with 27 %. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the potential benefits of the MSCS protocol in terms of reducing the burden on patients and healthcare providers and improving the efficiency of the CI selection process.

A retrospective analysis of hearing after cholesteatoma surgery: the bony obliteration tympanoplasty versus canal wall up and canal wall down without mastoid obliteration.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the hearing outcome after the bony obliteration tympanoplasty (BOT), canal wall up (CWU) without mastoid obliteration and canal wall down (CWD) without mastoid obliteration in a large patient cohort. As the aeration of the middle ear is associated with hearing outcome, we hypothesized that the post-operative hearing after the BOT may be better compared to CWU and CWD without obliteration. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study on all adult patients who underwent the BOT, CWU without obliteration or CWD without obliteration for primary or revision cholesteatoma between January 2003 and March 2019 with audiological follow-up at our institution. Pre-operative, short-term post-operative and long-term post-operative hearing tests were analyzed and potential factors influencing post-operative hearing were assessed. RESULTS: 626 ears were included. We found no significant differences between the short-term and long-term post-operative audiometry. The pre-operative air-bone gap (ABG) was the factor with the largest effect size on change in air-bone gap (ABG) between pre- and post-operative. When stratifying for this factor along with the type of ossicular chain reconstruction to account for differences at baseline, no significant differences in post-operative ABG were found between BOT and non-obliteration CWU and CWD. CONCLUSION: In this large retrospective cohort study, we found no significant differences in post-operative ABG between the BOT and the non-obliteration CWU and CWD. A solid comparison of hearing between groups remains very challenging as hearing outcome seems to be dependent on many different factors. Hearing outcome seems to be no additional argument to choose for BOT over non-obliteration surgery.

Revision surgery for chronically discharging mastoid cavities: mastoid obliteration with canal wall reconstruction versus non-obliteration surgery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the surgical results of revision canal wall down (CWD) surgery for chronically discharging mastoid cavities and to compare the non-obliteration approach to mastoid obliteration with canal wall reconstruction. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study. All adult patients (≥ 18 years) who underwent revision surgery for chronically draining mastoid cavities between January 2013 and January 2020 were included. Primary outcome measures included the dry ear rate, complications and postoperative hearing. RESULTS: 79 ears were included; 56 ears received revision CWD with mastoid obliteration and posterior canal wall reconstruction and 23 ears received CWD without mastoid obliteration. The dry ear rate at the most recent outpatient clinic visit (median 28.0 months postoperative) was significantly higher in the obliteration group with 96.4% compared to 73.9% for the non-obliteration group (p = .002). There were no differences in audiological outcome and incidence of complications between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: We show that in our study population revision CWD surgery with mastoid obliteration and posterior canal wall reconstruction is superior to revision CWD surgery without mastoid obliteration in the management of chronically discharging mastoid cavities. In the obliteration group, a dry ear was achieved in 96.4% as this was 73.9% in the non-obliteration group. We found no differences in audiological outcome and in incidence of complications between the two techniques.

Radiological Follow-up After the Bony Obliteration Tympanoplasty in Detecting Residual Cholesteatoma: Towards an Optimal Postoperative MR Imaging Protocol.

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: There is no consensus in literature on the most optimal follow-up imaging protocol for non-echoplanar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (non-EP DW MRI) after the canal wall-up bony obliteration tympanoplasty. Clearly, no residual cholesteatoma should be missed but on the other hand, unnecessary MR controls should be avoided. The aim of this study is to evaluate the postoperative results of non-EP DW MRI after canal wall-up bony obliteration tympanoplasty surgery at our Institute and to propose an optimal postoperative MR imaging scheme based on our data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study; all 271 patients who underwent the bony obliteration tympanoplasty between January 2010 and January 2016 with follow-up at our Institute were included. A postoperative MR imaging was systematically performed at 1 year after surgery and repeated at either 5 or both 3 and 5 years after surgery, based on the preferences of the surgeon. Variables of interest were retrieved from electronic patient records. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 60 months (inter-quartile range 56-62 mo). Two hundred seventy-one patients (100%) received a 1-year MRI, 107 (39%) a 3-year MRI, and 216 (79.7%%) a 5-year MRI. Residual cholesteatoma was found in nine cases (3.3%), corresponding with an estimated residual rate at 5 years follow-up of 3.7% when using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Of these nine cases, six cases of residual cholesteatoma (66.7%) were detected at the 1-year MRI (12-14 mo postsurgery), two cases (22.2%) at the 3-year MRI (35-39 mo postsurgery), and one case (11.1%) at the 5-year MRI (51 mo postsurgery, in this patient no 3-year MRI was performed). An uncertain MRI result was found in 15 cases, presenting as relatively hyperintense lesions. However, subsequent follow-up scans did not show persistent evidence for residual disease in 14 of these 15 cases. CONCLUSIONS: A postoperative MRI scan after 1 and 5 years is essential to detect early and late residual cholesteatoma. In our cohort, 22.2% of residual cases were detected at the 3-year MRI. However, this percentage could potentially have been higher when all patients would have received a 3-year MRI. Therefore, in order to detect residual disease as soon as possible, we propose to perform an MRI scan at 1, 3, and 5 years after the bony obliteration tympanoplasty. In cases with an unclear MR result, we suggest a repeat MRI after 12 months.

Treatment Outcome of the Bony Obliteration Tympanoplasty Versus Nonobliterative Techniques in Cholesteatoma Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In cholesteatoma surgery, obliteration of the mastoid and epitympanic space (bony obliteration tympanoplasty, BOT) is an increasingly used technique with low recurrent and residual cholesteatoma rates. While factors as the postoperative hearing level and infection rate are important for the patient as well, these outcome parameters are not frequently reported on in current literature. The objective of this study is to evaluate the recurrent and residual cholesteatoma rates of the BOT technique and nonobliterative canal wall up (CWU) and canal wall down (CWD) mastoidectomy in a large patient cohort. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the infection rate and hearing outcome for all three techniques. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single-center study. PATIENTS: All 337 adult patients (≥18 yrs) who underwent primary or revision cholesteatoma surgery between January 2013 and March 2019 were included. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Recurrent cholesteatoma rates, residual cholesteatoma rates, postoperative infections and other complications, hearing outcome. RESULTS: The estimated combined rate of recurrent and residual cholesteatoma at 5 years follow-up was 7.6% in the BOT group, 34.9% in the CWU group, and 17.9% in the CWD group. The postoperative infection rate in the different groups ranged from 4.3% to 4.9%. The median gain in AC threshold level varied from 0.0 dB in the BOT and CWD group to 3.8 dB in the CWU group. CONCLUSIONS: We show that cholesteatoma recurrence rates after the BOT technique in our clinic are significantly lower compared to CWU surgery. There were no differences in infection rate and no clinically relevant differences in postoperative hearing between the BOT, CWU, and CWD technique.

Single-Stage Mastoid Obliteration in Cholesteatoma Surgery and Recurrent and Residual Disease Rates: A Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: The ideal surgical treatment of cholesteatoma has been subject to discussion for years because both traditional surgical techniques (canal wall down [CWD] and canal wall up [CWU] tympanoplasty) have their own advantages and disadvantages. A more recently propagated surgical approach, to combine the CWD or CWU tympanoplasty technique with obliteration of the mastoid and epitympanum, is showing promising results. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on recurrent and residual cholesteatoma rates after single-stage CWU and CWD tympanoplasty with mastoid obliteration. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A systematic search of literature was performed to identify relevant publications in multiple electronic databases. The initial search was conducted in December 2016 and was updated in July 2017. Each study was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers on predetermined eligibility criteria. The methodological quality was determined using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) scale, and the relevance to the current topic was determined using a 4-criterion checklist. FINDINGS: The searches identified a total of 336 potentially relevant publications; 190 articles were excluded based on title and abstract. The full-text articles of the remaining 146 citations were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 22 articles. After assessing these remaining articles for methodological quality and relevance to the current topic, another 8 studies were excluded, and a total of 13 studies (1534 patients) were included. Of the 1534 patients who underwent CWD or CWU tympanoplasty with mastoid obliteration, the rate of recurrent disease was 4.6%, and the rate of residual disease was 5.4%. In CWU tympanoplasty with mastoid obliteration, these rates were 0.28% and 4.2%, respectively and in CWD tympanoplasty with mastoid obliteration, 5.9% and 5.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We show the recurrent and residual disease rates after either CWU or CWD tympanoplasty with mastoid obliteration to be qualitatively similar to, if not better than, previously reported rates of for nonobliterative techniques. In this study, the lowest recurrent and residual rates were reported when combining the CWU tympanoplasty with mastoid obliteration, on average 0.28 and 4.2%, respectively.