Cochlear Implantation Outcomes in Pediatric Unilateral Hearing Loss: Impact of Device Use and Direct Input.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of daily cochlear implant (CI) use on speech perception outcomes among children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL). STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional retrospective case series of pediatric patients with UHL who underwent CI between 2018 to 2022. SETTING: Three tertiary children's hospitals. METHODS: Demographics were obtained including duration of deafness and age at CI. Best consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word scores and data logs describing hours of CI usage were assessed postimplantation. Use of direct audio input (DAI) during rehabilitation was recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-seven children were included, with a mean age at CI of 7.8 years. Mean datalogging time was 7.8 ± 3.0 hours/day. 40.7% of children utilized daily DAI. The mean CNC score using the best score during the study period was 34.9%. There was no significant correlation between hours of CI usage and CNC score. There was a significant improvement in CNC score associated with whether the child used DAI during rehabilitation (CNC 50.91% [yes] vs 23.81% [no]), which remained significant when adjusting for age at CI, duration of deafness, and data log hours. CONCLUSION: Unlike children with bilateral hearing loss and CI, children with UHL and CI demonstrate no significant correlation between hours of daily CI usage and CNC scores. However, children who used DAI during postoperative rehabilitation achieved significantly higher CNC scores than those who did not. This suggests that rehabilitation focused on isolated listening with the implanted ear maybe critical in optimizing outcomes with CI in UHL patients.

Predicting Acoustic Hearing Preservation Following Cochlear Implant Surgery Using Machine Learning.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to train and test supervised machine-learning classifiers to predict acoustic hearing preservation after CI using preoperative clinical data. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective predictive modeling study of prospectively collected single-institution CI dataset. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-five patients from a REDCap database including 761 patients >18 years who underwent CI and had audiometric testing preoperatively and one month after surgery were included. The primary outcome variable was the lowest quartile change in acoustic hearing at one month after CI using various formulae (standard pure tone average, SPTA; low-frequency PTA, LFPTA). Analysis involved applying multivariate logistic regression to detect statistical associations and training and testing supervised learning classifiers. Classifier performance was assessed with numerous metrics including area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). RESULTS: Lowest quartile change (indicating hearing preservation) in SPTA was positively associated with a history of meningitis, preoperative LFPTA, and preoperative SPTA. Lowest quartile change in SPTA was negatively associated with sudden hearing loss, noise exposure, aural fullness, and abnormal anatomy. Lowest quartile change in LFPTA was positively associated with preoperative LFPTA. Lowest quartile change in LFPTA was negatively associated with tobacco use. Random forest demonstrated the highest mean classification performance on the validation dataset when predicting each of the outcome variables. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning demonstrated utility for predicting preservation of residual acoustic hearing in patients undergoing CI surgery, and the detected associations facilitated the interpretation of our machine-learning models. The models and statistical associations together may be used to facilitate improvements in shared clinical decision-making and patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:926-936, 2024.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Children With Unilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss Following Cochlear Implantation.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) benefits with cochlear implantation (CI) in children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (USNHL) versus bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (BSNHL). STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of parents of children who underwent CI for USNHL and BSNHL. SETTING: Tertiary care academic centers. METHODS: The "Children with cochlear implants: parental perspectives" survey was administered. Parents rated responses on a 5-point Likert scale. Scores greater than 3.0 were considered favorable. Responses were recorded within 8 domains and groups were compared with respect to domain scores. Analysis of covariance models was used to compare groups while adjusting for age at implantation and duration of implant use. RESULTS: There were 31 patients with USNHL and 27 patients with BSNHL. The average age of implantation in BSNHL patients was 1.9 and 6.7 years for USNHL. Parents of all children answered favorably in all domains. When adjusted for age at implantation and duration of implant use, parents of BSNHL children responded significantly more favorably only in 2 domains. When comparing patients with older age or prolonged duration of hearing loss in the USNHL cohort, there were favorable responses in all domains with no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: There are HR-QOL benefits of CI in USNHL children; less pronounced favorable results were noted only in 2 domains when compared to BSNHL children. Benefits were noted with CI in USNHL children at an older age at implantation or prolonged duration of hearing loss. Therefore, these factors should not be absolute contraindications for CI in USNHL.

Creating an Extraordinary Experience for Women Undergoing Cystoscopy: A Patient-Centered Approach to Process Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To re-examine and improve the cystoscopy process for women based on patient input. While cystoscopy is a common urological procedure, women perceive it as invasive, personal, and fear-inducing. Patients want to be treated as individuals and not just another "procedure." METHODS: Women's perspectives on cystoscopy were collected using experience-based design. Observations and timings, emotion word lists, debrief forms, patient surveys, simulation, and interviews were used. A structured 2-day quality improvement event included both in-person and virtual patient participation to gain a deeper understanding of patients' perspectives. Ideas for process improvements were generated using brainstorming, creativity exercises, and prioritization. These changes were implemented and refined using an iterative process based on feedback. RESULTS: Patients who reported feeling grateful for the positive impact of their care tended to minimize procedure-associated wait times, inconvenience, and discomfort. Women in the evaluation phase of their treatment and those who were unhappy with their symptoms tended to magnify the negative emotions associated with their procedure. Patient feedback and areas for improvement specific to women's needs were identified. Actionable changes were implemented including engaging clinic staff, updating the cystoscopy workflow, and physical changes to enhance patient privacy. CONCLUSION: Identifying and addressing the needs of women undergoing cystoscopy improves satisfaction as their emotional, physical, and knowledge-based needs are addressed. Active participation in the health care process empowers patients to have a voice in their care. An extraordinary experience with cystoscopy may decrease anxiety of the unknown and help patients have control over the experience.

Comparing the Precision and Reliability Between Three Radiographic Techniques for Measuring Sporadic Vestibular Schwannomas.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Several methods exist for measuring vestibular schwannoma (VS) size radiographically. Our aim was to compare the precision and reproducibility of three different radiographic measurement techniques for assessing VS tumor size. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients with unilateral, sporadic VS previously untreated were identified. All patients had thin-slice T1 weighted, postcontrasted magnetization prepared rapid acquisition gradient echo images. Three measurement techniques were performed using within-subject and between-subject comparison. Experimental comparison of interobserver agreement between techniques was calculated. Interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients, repeatability coefficients, and relative smallest detectable difference were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Mean tumor measurements were: 10.3 mm (maximum linear dimension, [MLD]), 495.9 mm3 (orthogonal volumetric analysis, [OVA]), and 572.1 mm3 (segmented volumetric analysis, [SVA]). Interobserver correlation coefficient was excellent for all measurement techniques, but highest for segmented volumetric analysis. Repeatability coefficient was 1.44 mm for MLD, 298.9 mm3 for OVA, and 174.8 mm3 for SVA. The smallest detectable difference was 13.9% for MLD, 60.2% for OVA, and 30.6% for SVA. A subgroup analysis was performed for small tumors (<14 mm) and large tumors (>14 mm) and demonstrated increased precision of segmented volumetric analysis for larger tumors. CONCLUSION: Semi-automated segmented volumetric analysis appears more precise than either linear measurement or orthogonal volumetric analysis for reporting VS tumor size, and becomes increasingly precise for larger tumors. Tumor volume and tumor volume change over time using SVA may be more sensitive in surveilling VS than current measurement techniques.

Tumor-Related and Patient-Related Variables Affecting Length of Hospital Stay Following Vestibular Schwannoma Microsurgery.

OBJECTIVE: Review a single institution's vestibular schwannoma (VS) microsurgery experience to determine (1) correlations between demographics, comorbidities, and/or surgical approach on hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition and (2) trends in surgical approach over time. METHODS: Retrospective case series from a multidisciplinary skull base program at a tertiary care, academic hospital. All adult (>18 years) patients undergoing primary microsurgery for VS between 2008 and 2018 were included. RESULTS: A total of 147 subjects were identified. Surgical approach was split between middle fossa (MF) (16%), retrosigmoid (RS) (35%), and translabyrinthine (TL) (49%) craniotomies. For the 8% of patients had other than routine (OTR) discharge. Mean LOS was significantly longer for patients undergoing RS than either MF or TL. Brainstem compression by the tumor was associated with longer LOS as were diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). For all discharges, the 40 to 50- and 50 to 60-year-old subgroups had significantly shorter LOS than the 70-years-and-older patients. For the 92% of patients routinely discharged, there was a significantly shorter LOS in the 40 to 50-year-olds compared to the 70-years-and-older patients. There was a significant shift in surgical approach from RS to TL over the study period. CONCLUSION: Over 90% of VS microsurgery patients were routinely discharged with a median hospital LOS of 3.2 days, both of which are consistent with published data. There is an inverse relationship between age and LOS with patients older than 70 years having significantly longer LOS. Brainstem compression, COPD, PVD, and the RS approach negatively affect LOS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Intratympanic Steroid Injection Complicated by Iatrogenic Perilymphatic Fistula: A Cautionary Tale.

Intratympanic (IT) steroid therapy is a mainstay treatment for sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) for both initial therapy and salvage therapy. We report a rare case of iatrogenic perilymphatic fistula that resulted from trauma during an IT steroid injection for SSNHL. We discuss the diagnosis and treatment in the current case and compare it with previous reports from the literature. Laryngoscope, 131:2088-2090, 2021.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Sudden Hearing Loss (Update) Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVE: Sudden hearing loss is a frightening symptom that often prompts an urgent or emergent visit to a health care provider. It is frequently, but not universally, accompanied by tinnitus and/or vertigo. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 27 per 100,000 people annually, with about 66,000 new cases per year in the United States. This guideline update provides evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of patients who present with sudden hearing loss. It focuses on sudden sensorineural hearing loss in adult patients aged 18 and over and primarily on those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Prompt recognition and management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss may improve hearing recovery and patient quality of life. The guideline update is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients who present with sudden hearing loss. PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline update is to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations in evaluating patients with sudden hearing loss and sudden sensorineural hearing loss, with particular emphasis on managing idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group recognized that patients enter the health care system with sudden hearing loss as a nonspecific primary complaint. Therefore, the initial recommendations of this guideline update address distinguishing sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss at the time of presentation with hearing loss. They also clarify the need to identify rare, nonidiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to help separate those patients from those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, who are the target population for the therapeutic interventions that make up the bulk of the guideline update. By focusing on opportunities for quality improvement, this guideline should improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate prompt intervention, decrease variations in management, reduce unnecessary tests and imaging procedures, and improve hearing and rehabilitative outcomes for affected patients. METHODS: Consistent with the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual, Third Edition, the guideline update group was convened with representation from the disciplines of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, otology, neurotology, family medicine, audiology, emergency medicine, neurology, radiology, advanced practice nursing, and consumer advocacy. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the prior clinical practice guideline on sudden hearing loss was reviewed in detail. Key action statements (KASs) were updated with new literature, and evidence profiles were brought up to the current standard. Research needs identified in the original clinical practice guideline and data addressing them were reviewed. Current research needs were identified and delineated. RESULTS: The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following: clinicians should distinguish sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss when a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss (KAS 1); clinicians should educate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss about the natural history of the condition, the benefits and risks of medical interventions, and the limitations of existing evidence regarding efficacy (KAS 7); and clinicians should counsel patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus about the possible benefits of audiological rehabilitation and other supportive measures (KAS 13). These strong recommendations were modified from the initial clinical practice guideline for clarity and timing of intervention. The guideline update group made strong recommendation against the following: clinicians should not order routine computed tomography of the head in the initial evaluation of a patient with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 3); clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory tests in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 5); and clinicians should not routinely prescribe antivirals, thrombolytics, vasodilators, or vasoactive substances to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 11). The guideline update group made recommendations for the following: clinicians should assess patients with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss through history and physical examination for bilateral sudden hearing loss, recurrent episodes of sudden hearing loss, and/or focal neurologic findings (KAS 2); in patients with sudden hearing loss, clinicians should obtain, or refer to a clinician who can obtain, audiometry as soon as possible (within 14 days of symptom onset) to confirm the diagnosis of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 4); clinicians should evaluate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss for retrocochlear pathology by obtaining a magnetic resonance imaging or auditory brainstem response (KAS 6); clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, intratympanic steroid therapy when patients have incomplete recovery from sudden sensorineural hearing loss 2 to 6 weeks after onset of symptoms (KAS 10); and clinicians should obtain follow-up audiometric evaluation for patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss at the conclusion of treatment and within 6 months of completion of treatment (KAS 12). These recommendations were clarified in terms of timing of intervention and audiometry, as well as method of retrocochlear workup. The guideline update group offered the following KASs as options: clinicians may offer corticosteroids as initial therapy to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss within 2 weeks of symptom onset (KAS 8); clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy within 2 weeks of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 9a); and clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy as salvage therapy within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss (KAS 9b). DIFFERENCES FROM PRIOR GUIDELINE: Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include quality improvement opportunities, confidence in the evidence, and differences of opinion Included 10 clinical practice guidelines, 29 new systematic reviews, and 36 new randomized controlled trials Highlights the urgency of evaluation and initiation of treatment, if treatment is offered, by emphasizing the time from symptom occurrence Clarification of terminology by changing potentially unclear statements; use of the term sudden sensorineural hearing loss to mean idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to emphasize that over 90% of sudden sensorineural hearing loss is idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss and to avoid confusion in nomenclature for the reader Changes to the key action statements (KASs) from the original guideline: KAS 1: When a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss, conductive hearing loss should be distinguished from sensorineural. KAS 2: The utility of history and physical examination when assessing for modifying factors is emphasized. KAS 3: The word routine is added to clarify that this statement addresses a nontargeted head computed tomography scan that is often ordered in the emergency room setting for patients presenting with sudden hearing loss. It does not refer to targeted scans such as a temporal bone computed tomography scan to assess for temporal bone pathology. KAS 4: The importance of audiometric confirmation of hearing status as soon as possible and within 14 days of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 5: New studies were added to confirm the lack of benefit of nontargeted laboratory testing in sudden sensorineural hearing loss. KAS 6: Audiometric follow-up is excluded as a reasonable workup for retrocochlear pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography scan if magnetic resonance imaging cannot be done, or, secondarily, auditory brainstem response evaluation are the modalities recommended. A time frame for such testing is not specified, nor is it specified which clinician should be ordering this workup; however, it is implied that it would be the general or subspecialty otolaryngologist. KAS 7: The importance of shared decision making is highlighted, and salient points are emphasized. KAS 8: The option for corticosteroid intervention within 2 weeks of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 9: Changed to KAS 9a and 9b; hyperbaric oxygen therapy remains an option but only when combined with steroid therapy for either initial treatment (9a) or for salvage therapy (9b). The timing is within 2 weeks of onset for initial therapy and within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss for salvage therapy. KAS 10: Intratympanic steroid therapy for salvage is recommended within 2 to 6 weeks following onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The time to treatment is defined and emphasized. KAS 11: Antioxidants were removed from the list of interventions that the clinical practice guideline recommends against using. KAS 12: Follow-up audiometry at conclusion of treatment and also within 6 months posttreatment is added. KAS 13: This statement on audiologic rehabilitation includes patients who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus who may benefit from treatment. Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs Enhanced emphasis on patient education and shared decision making with tools provided to assist in the same.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Sudden Hearing Loss (Update).

OBJECTIVE: Sudden hearing loss is a frightening symptom that often prompts an urgent or emergent visit to a health care provider. It is frequently but not universally accompanied by tinnitus and/or vertigo. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss affects 5 to 27 per 100,000 people annually, with about 66,000 new cases per year in the United States. This guideline update provides evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and follow-up of patients who present with sudden hearing loss. It focuses on sudden sensorineural hearing loss in adult patients aged ≥18 years and primarily on those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Prompt recognition and management of sudden sensorineural hearing loss may improve hearing recovery and patient quality of life. The guideline update is intended for all clinicians who diagnose or manage adult patients who present with sudden hearing loss. PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline update is to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations in evaluating patients with sudden hearing loss and sudden sensorineural hearing loss, with particular emphasis on managing idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group recognized that patients enter the health care system with sudden hearing loss as a nonspecific primary complaint. Therefore, the initial recommendations of this guideline update address distinguishing sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss at the time of presentation with hearing loss. They also clarify the need to identify rare, nonidiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to help separate those patients from those with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss, who are the target population for the therapeutic interventions that make up the bulk of the guideline update. By focusing on opportunities for quality improvement, this guideline should improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate prompt intervention, decrease variations in management, reduce unnecessary tests and imaging procedures, and improve hearing and rehabilitative outcomes for affected patients. METHODS: Consistent with the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation's "Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual, Third Edition" (Rosenfeld et al. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148[1]:S1-S55), the guideline update group was convened with representation from the disciplines of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, otology, neurotology, family medicine, audiology, emergency medicine, neurology, radiology, advanced practice nursing, and consumer advocacy. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the prior clinical practice guideline on sudden hearing loss was reviewed in detail. Key Action Statements (KASs) were updated with new literature, and evidence profiles were brought up to the current standard. Research needs identified in the original clinical practice guideline and data addressing them were reviewed. Current research needs were identified and delineated. RESULTS: The guideline update group made strong recommendations for the following: (KAS 1) Clinicians should distinguish sensorineural hearing loss from conductive hearing loss when a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss. (KAS 7) Clinicians should educate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss about the natural history of the condition, the benefits and risks of medical interventions, and the limitations of existing evidence regarding efficacy. (KAS 13) Clinicians should counsel patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus about the possible benefits of audiologic rehabilitation and other supportive measures. These strong recommendations were modified from the initial clinical practice guideline for clarity and timing of intervention. The guideline update group made strong recommendations against the following: (KAS 3) Clinicians should not order routine computed tomography of the head in the initial evaluation of a patient with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 5) Clinicians should not obtain routine laboratory tests in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 11) Clinicians should not routinely prescribe antivirals, thrombolytics, vasodilators, or vasoactive substances to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The guideline update group made recommendations for the following: (KAS 2) Clinicians should assess patients with presumptive sudden sensorineural hearing loss through history and physical examination for bilateral sudden hearing loss, recurrent episodes of sudden hearing loss, and/or focal neurologic findings. (KAS 4) In patients with sudden hearing loss, clinicians should obtain, or refer to a clinician who can obtain, audiometry as soon as possible (within 14 days of symptom onset) to confirm the diagnosis of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 6) Clinicians should evaluate patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss for retrocochlear pathology by obtaining magnetic resonance imaging or auditory brainstem response. (KAS 10) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, intratympanic steroid therapy when patients have incomplete recovery from sudden sensorineural hearing loss 2 to 6 weeks after onset of symptoms. (KAS 12) Clinicians should obtain follow-up audiometric evaluation for patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss at the conclusion of treatment and within 6 months of completion of treatment. These recommendations were clarified in terms of timing of intervention and audiometry and method of retrocochlear workup. The guideline update group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 8) Clinicians may offer corticosteroids as initial therapy to patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss within 2 weeks of symptom onset. (KAS 9a) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy within 2 weeks of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. (KAS 9b) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid therapy as salvage therapy within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. DIFFERENCES FROM PRIOR GUIDELINE: Incorporation of new evidence profiles to include quality improvement opportunities, confidence in the evidence, and differences of opinion Included 10 clinical practice guidelines, 29 new systematic reviews, and 36 new randomized controlled trials Highlights the urgency of evaluation and initiation of treatment, if treatment is offered, by emphasizing the time from symptom occurrence Clarification of terminology by changing potentially unclear statements; use of the term sudden sensorineural hearing loss to mean idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss to emphasize that >90% of sudden sensorineural hearing loss is idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss and to avoid confusion in nomenclature for the reader Changes to the KASs from the original guideline: KAS 1-When a patient first presents with sudden hearing loss, conductive hearing loss should be distinguished from sensorineural. KAS 2-The utility of history and physical examination when assessing for modifying factors is emphasized. KAS 3-The word "routine" is added to clarify that this statement addresses nontargeted head computerized tomography scan that is often ordered in the emergency room setting for patients presenting with sudden hearing loss. It does not refer to targeted scans, such as temporal bone computerized tomography scan, to assess for temporal bone pathology. KAS 4-The importance of audiometric confirmation of hearing status as soon as possible and within 14 days of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 5-New studies were added to confirm the lack of benefit of nontargeted laboratory testing in sudden sensorineural hearing loss. KAS 6-Audiometric follow-up is excluded as a reasonable workup for retrocochlear pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography scan if magnetic resonance imaging cannot be done, and, secondarily, auditory brainstem response evaluation are the modalities recommended. A time frame for such testing is not specified, nor is it specified which clinician should be ordering this workup; however, it is implied that it would be the general or subspecialty otolaryngologist. KAS 7-The importance of shared decision making is highlighted, and salient points are emphasized. KAS 8-The option for corticosteroid intervention within 2 weeks of symptom onset is emphasized. KAS 9-Changed to KAS 9A and 9B. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy remains an option but only when combined with steroid therapy for either initial treatment (9A) or salvage therapy (9B). The timing of initial therapy is within 2 weeks of onset, and that of salvage therapy is within 1 month of onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. KAS 10-Intratympanic steroid therapy for salvage is recommended within 2 to 6 weeks following onset of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. The time to treatment is defined and emphasized. KAS 11-Antioxidants were removed from the list of interventions that the clinical practice guideline recommends against using. KAS 12-Follow-up audiometry at conclusion of treatment and also within 6 months posttreatment is added. KAS 13-This statement on audiologic rehabilitation includes patients who have residual hearing loss and/or tinnitus who may benefit from treatment. Addition of an algorithm outlining KASs Enhanced emphasis on patient education and shared decision making with tools provided to assist in same.

Cochlear Implantation for Single-Sided Deafness: A New Treatment Paradigm.

Unilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), also known as single sided deafness (SSD), is a problem that affects both children and adults, and can have severe and detrimental effects on multiple aspects of life including music appreciation, speech understanding in noise, speech and language acquisition, performance in the classroom and/or the workplace, and quality of life. Additionally, the loss of binaural hearing in SSD patients affects those processes that rely on two functional ears including sound localization, binaural squelch and summation, and the head shadow effect. Over the last decade, there has been increasing interest in cochlear implantation for SSD to restore binaural hearing. Early data are promising that cochlear implantation for SSD can help to restore binaural functionality, improve quality of life, and may faciliate reversal of neuroplasticity related to auditory deprivation in the pediatric population. Additionally, this new patient population has allowed researchers the opportunity to investigate the age-old question "what does a cochlear implant (CI) sound like?."

Comparison of Transmastoid and Middle Fossa Approaches for Superior Canal Dehiscence Repair: A Multi-institutional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes for patients undergoing a transmastoid approach versus a middle fossa craniotomy approach with plugging and/or resurfacing for repair of superior semicircular canal dehiscence. Outcome measures include symptom resolution, hearing, operative time, hospital stay, complications, and revision rates. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective comparative cohort study. SETTINGS: Three tertiary neurotology centers. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All adult patients undergoing repair for superior canal dehiscence between 2006 and 2017 at 3 neurotology centers were included. Demographics and otologic history collected by chart review. Imaging, audiometric data, and vestibular evoked myogenic potential measurements were also collected for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients (74 ears) were included in the study. Twenty-one patients underwent middle fossa craniotomy repair (mean age, 47.9 years), and 47 underwent transmastoid repair (mean age, 48.0 years). There were no significant differences in age or sex distribution between the groups. The transmastoid group experienced a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization and lower recurrence rate as compared with the middle fossa craniotomy group (3.8% vs 33%). Both groups experienced improvement in noise-induced vertigo, autophony, pulsatile tinnitus, and nonspecific vertigo. There was no significant difference among symptom resolution between groups. Additionally, there was no significant difference in audiometric outcomes between the groups. CONCLUSION: Both the transmastoid approach and the middle fossa craniotomy approach for repair of superior canal dehiscence offer symptom resolution with minimal risk. The transmastoid approach was associated with shorter hospital stays and lower recurrence rate as compared with the middle fossa craniotomy approach.

Postoperative Antibiotics Following Cochlear Implantation: Are They Necessary?

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate whether prophylactic antibiotics administered following cochlear implant (CI) surgery impact short-term infection rates. DESIGN: Retrospective, concurrent, case-control. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: All patients (range, 9 months-91 years) undergoing cochlear implantation between 2013 and 2017 (n = 188). INTERVENTION(S): Starting in 2015, one surgeon stopped prescribing postoperative antibiotics after CI surgery. We compared infection rates in a control group that received antibiotics in the 18 months prior to this change (n = 95) to the cohort of patients that did not receive postoperative antibiotics (n = 49). In a second analysis, 44 patients that underwent CI surgery concurrently from a second surgeon and were prescribed postoperative antibiotics were compared to the 49 patients who did not receive postoperative antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Postoperative infection rates in the perioperative period (0-30 days) following cochlear implantation. RESULTS: None of the 49 cases and none of the 95 historic controls or 44 concurrent controls experienced postoperative infection. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, postoperative antibiotics following cochlear implantation did not impact perioperative infection rates. Unnecessary antibiotics can lead to increased resistance, allergic sequelae, and unnecessary costs while having little effect on reducing infection rates. This pilot study should encourage surgeons to reevaluate standard practice around antibiotic use after CI surgery.

Cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness: A multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To report the preliminary outcomes of patients with single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss undergoing cochlear implantation at two centers. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review and prospective data collection. METHODS: Patients with single-sided deafness who underwent cochlear implantation at two centers were included. Pre- and postoperative measures included monosyllabic word and sentence recognition in quiet for the ear implanted, and sentence recognition in noise in the best-aided bilateral condition. RESULTS: Average monosyllabic word recognition scores in quiet improved significantly from 11.3% (standard deviation [SD] 15.6%) preoperatively to 48.7% (SD 24.2%) at the 3-month postactivation interval, although they did not increase significantly between the 3-month and 6-month intervals. Sentence recognition scores in quiet increased significantly from 18.4% (SD 28.5%) preoperatively to 65.9% (SD 17.9%) at the 3-month postactivation interval, but not between the 3-month and 6-month intervals. Sentence recognition in noise in the best-aided bilateral condition increased from 59% (SD 16.3%) preoperatively to 72% (SD 16.0%) at 6-months postactivation, though the difference was not statistically significant. Thirteen of the participants reported tinnitus prior to surgery. Of those, 12 reported that tinnitus was improved after implantation, and one reported that tinnitus was unchanged. CONCLUSION: Preliminary results suggest that speech recognition in a singly deafened ear is significantly improved after cochlear implantation, although speech recognition in noise measured in the bilateral condition remains the same at 6-months postactivation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 127:223-228, 2017.

Ethnic disparity in skin complications following bone-anchored hearing aid implantation.

OBJECTIVES: Sound processor loading after implantation of a bone-anchored hearing aid is often delayed by skin-site complications. This study examined the frequency of skin-site complications in various ethnic groups and determined factors that may lead to higher rates of skin-site complications resulting in delayed processor loading. METHODS: Adult, English-speaking patients who underwent implantation of a bone-anchored hearing aid between 2007 and 2010 were reviewed. Demographic data including ethnicity, tobacco use, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppression, and long-term steroid use were determined. Major and minor skin-site complications and the time to processor loading were recorded. RESULTS: The mean time to processor loading was 9.5 weeks, and the mean follow-up time was 23 months. There were no cases of osseointegration failure. African American patients had a significantly higher rate of major skin-site complications (p < 0.005) and a longer time to processor loading (mean, 17.6 weeks; p < 0.05) than the other ethnic groups. There was no significant difference in minor skin complication rates. There was no correlation between diabetes mellitus, long-term immunosuppression, or tobacco use and skin-site complications. CONCLUSIONS: Skin complications can delay processor loading following implantation of a bone-anchored hearing aid. There is a higher rate of major skin-site complications in African American patients, and these often delay processor loading. The risk of skin-site complications is not correlated with smoking, diabetes mellitus, or immunosuppression. An increased risk of skin-site complications is an important consideration for preoperative counseling.

Bone-anchored implantation for single-sided deafness in patients with less than profound hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: The benefit of bone-anchored implantation (BAI) for the treatment of single-sided deafness (SSD) is well established. In this study, the authors sought to evaluate objective hearing outcomes and subjective benefits in patients undergoing BAI for SSD with residual hearing in the implanted ear. STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All adult, English-speaking patients undergoing BAI for SSD from 2004 to 2010 were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups: (1) residual hearing in the affected ear (≤ 90 db hearing level [HL] pure-tone average [PTA]) and (2) profound hearing loss in the affected ear (>90 dB HL PTA). Patients underwent pre- and postoperative objective hearing outcomes testing including speech-in-noise and monosyllabic word tests. Subjective outcomes were measured pre- and postoperatively using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP). RESULTS: Patients in both groups showed significant improvement in all objective hearing measures following implantation (P < .0001), and there were no significant differences in objective hearing outcomes between groups. Subjective benefits from BAI varied across patients according to GHABP results, but patients with residual hearing in the affected ear trended toward improved satisfaction with their device postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Individuals with SSD and residual cochlear reserve can be successfully implanted with BAI, achieving significant improvements in objective hearing measures. Postoperative improvements do not seem to correlate with the preoperative audiometric testing scores. Although subjective benefit varies across patients, BAI is clearly a viable rehabilitation option for patients with SSD and less than profound hearing loss.

Early loading after single-stage bone-anchored implantation in adults.

OBJECTIVE: Classically, processor loading after single-stage bone-anchored implantation (BAI) surgery follows a 3-month osseointegration period. The purpose of this study was to examine audiometric outcomes and postoperative complications in adult patients undergoing single-stage BAI with processor loading at less than 6 weeks postoperatively. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Otology clinic in a tertiary care academic center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all adult patients (>18 years) undergoing BAI from 2007 to 2010. Sixty-four patients met inclusion criteria. Fifty-five patients had unilateral hearing loss, including single-sided deafness, conductive hearing loss, or mixed hearing loss. Nine patients had bilateral hearing loss. Patients were divided into groups based on time to processor loading (>12 weeks, <12 weeks, <6 weeks). All patients were loaded with the external processor at less than 6 weeks when possible. Preoperative and postoperative audiometric evaluations were performed. RESULTS: There were no cases of osseointegration failure. All groups showed significant improvement in audiometric testing using their BAI (P < .005), and there were no significant differences between patients loaded at less than 12 weeks and those loaded at less than 6 weeks (P > .05). Major skin complications were seen in 9% of subjects and minor complications in 30%. CONCLUSIONS: Single-stage BAI implantation with early processor loading is safe and effective in adults. All groups demonstrated significant audiometric benefit that was not affected in patients loaded early. Major and minor skin-site complications frequently delayed processor loading, but there were no cases of osseointegration failure in any group.

Preoperative embolization in carotid body tumor surgery: is it required?

OBJECTIVES: We compared estimated blood loss (EBL) in patients who underwent surgical excision of carotid body tumors (CBTs) after preoperative superselective angiography with embolization (PSE) with that in patients who underwent excision of CBTs without PSE. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of a consecutive case series in a single surgeon's practice within an academic tertiary care medical center. Twenty-five patients underwent surgical resection of a CBT from 1989 to 2009. From 1989 to 1996, 10 consecutive patients had PSE of the CBT, whereas the subsequent 15 patients (1996 to 2009) had no PSE. Demographic data including age, sex, and tumor size were collected. The EBL was obtained from intraoperative records and operative notes dictated at the time of surgery. Tumor size was based on preoperative radiographic measurements by a senior radiologist and the surgeon. RESULTS: In the 10 patients with PSE, the mean age was 41 years (range, 22 to 72 years) and the mean tumor size was 4.8 cm (range, 2.9 to 8.3 cm). The mean EBL was 305 mL (range, 50 to 1,000 mL); 2 patients had an EBL of more than 400 mL. In the 15 patients without PSE, the mean age was 43.7 years (range, 20 to 75 years) and the mean tumor size was 4.4 cm (range, 2.8 to 7.9 cm). The mean EBL was 265.6 mL (range, 40 to 900 mL); 2 patients had an EBL of more than 400 mL. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with regard to age, tumor size, or EBL. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative superselective angiography with embolization of a CBT does not lead to a significant reduction in intraoperative EBL.