IGF-1 Mediated Neuroprotective Effects of Olfactory-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells on Auditory Hair Cells.

IMPORTANCE: Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have the capability of providing ongoing paracrine support to degenerating tissues. Since MSCs can be extracted from a broad range of tissues, their specific surface marker profiles and growth factor secretions can be different. We hypothesized that MSCs derived from different sources might also have different neuroprotective potential. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we extracted MSCs from rodent olfactory mucosa and compared their neuroprotective effects on auditory hair cell survival with MSCs extracted from rodent adipose tissue. METHODS: Organ of Corti explants were dissected from 41 cochlea and incubated with olfactory mesenchymal stem cells (OMSCs) and adipose mesenchymal stem cells (AMSCs). After 72 hours, Corti explants were fixed, stained, and hair cells counted. Growth factor concentrations were determined in the supernatant and cell lysate using Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). RESULTS: Co-culturing of organ of Corti explants with OMSCs resulted in a significant increase in inner and outer hair cell stereocilia survival, compared to control. Comparisons between both stem cell lines, showed that co-culturing with OMSCs resulted in superior inner and outer hair cell stereocilia survival rates over co-culturing with AMSCs. Assessment of growth factor secretions revealed that the OMSCs secrete significant amounts of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Co-culturing OMSCs with organ of Corti explants resulted in a 10-fold increase in IGF-1 level compared to control, and their secretion was 2 to 3 times higher compared to the AMSCs. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that OMSCs may mitigate auditory hair cell stereocilia degeneration. Their neuroprotective effects may, at least partially, be ascribed to their enhanced IGF-1 secretory abilities compared to AMSCs.

Prevalence of tinnitus and hyperacusis in 9-12-year-old children.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of tinnitus and hyperacusis in children aged 9-12 years in Flanders, as well as to explore the associations with hearing abilities and listening behaviours. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was undertaken in four different Flemish schools. The questionnaire was distributed among 415 children, with a response rate of 97.3%. RESULTS: The prevalence of permanent tinnitus was 10.5% and of hyperacusis was 3.3%. The hyperacusis prevalence was higher in girls (p < .05). Some children reported effects of tinnitus in terms of anxiety (20.1%), sleep (36.5%), and concentration (24.8%). When listening to personal listening devices, 33.5% of the children reported to listen for at least 1 h at 60% or higher of the volume range. Moreover, 54.9% of children stated to never wear hearing protection. CONCLUSIONS: Tinnitus and hyperacusis are prevalent in children aged 9-12 years. Some of these children might be overlooked and, as such, not receiving the required follow-up or counselling. Development of guidelines for the assessment of these auditory symptoms in children would help to determine the prevalence numbers with greater accuracy. Sensibility campaigns for safe listening are warranted, as more than half of the children never use hearing protection.

Evaluation of Cognitive Functioning Before and After Cochlear Implantation in Adults Aged 55 Years and Older at Risk for Mild Cognitive Impairment.

Importance: Given the rapidly rising dementia incidence, management of modifiable risk factors, such as hearing loss, is vital. Multiple studies have demonstrated an improvement of cognitive functioning in older adults with severe hearing loss after cochlear implantation; however, few of these studies, to the authors' knowledge, specifically analyzed participants achieving poor cognitive results preoperatively. Objective: To evaluate the cognitive functioning of older adults with severe hearing loss at risk for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) before and after cochlear implantation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, longitudinal cohort study performed at a single center reports data obtained over a 6-year period (April 2015 to September 2021) of an ongoing prospective, longitudinal cohort study on cochlear implant outcomes in older adults. A consecutive sample of older adults with severe hearing loss eligible for cochlear implantation was included. All participants obtained a Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status for hearing-impaired patients (RBANS-H) total score indicative of MCI preoperatively. Participants were assessed before cochlear implant activation and 12 months after cochlear implant activation. Intervention: The intervention consisted of cochlear implantation. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome measure was cognition, measured by the RBANS-H. Results: A total of 21 older adult cochlear implant candidates were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 72 [9] years; 13 [62%] men). Cochlear implantation was associated with an improvement of overall cognitive functioning 12 months after activation (median [IQR] percentile, 5 [2-8] vs 12 [7-19]; difference, 7 [95% CI, 2-12]). Eight participants (38%) surpassed the MCI cutoff (16th percentile) postoperatively, while the overall median cognitive score remained under this cutoff. In addition, participants' speech recognition in noise improved, with a lower score indicating improvement (mean [SD] score, +17.16 [5.45] vs +5.67 [6.3]; difference, -11.49 [95% CI, -14.26 to -8.72]), after cochlear implant activation. Improvement of speech recognition in noise was positively associated with improvement in cognitive functioning (rs, -0.48 [95% CI, -0.69 to -0.19]). Years of education, sex, RBANS-H version, and symptoms of depression and anxiety were not related to the evolution in RBANS-H scores. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective, longitudinal cohort study, cognitive functioning and speech perception in noise showed a clinically meaningful improvement 12 months after cochlear implant activation in older adults with severe hearing loss at risk for MCI, suggesting that cochlear implantation is not contraindicated in cochlear implant candidates with cognitive decline and should be considered after multidisciplinary evaluation.

Pilot study on the role of somatic modulation in hyperacusis.

BACKGROUND: Hyperacusis is a reduced tolerance to sounds that often co-occurs with tinnitus. Both symptoms have convergent as well as divergent characteristics. Somatic modulation, changes in pitch or loudness during certain movements, is common in patients with a primary complaint of tinnitus. However, thus far, this is not documented in patients with hyperacusis. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the influence of somatic manoeuvres on the perception of external sounds in patients with a primary complaint of hyperacusis. METHODOLOGY: In this prospective cross-sectional pilot study, 18 patients with a primary complaint of hyperacusis were recruited at the Tinnitus Treatment and Research Center Antwerp (TINTRA). While patients listened to a 1 kHz broadband noise of 30 dB sensation level, six neck manoeuvres (flexion, extension, lateroflexion left/right, traction and compression), three jaw manoeuvres (protrusion, laterotrusion left/right) and one placebo manoeuvre (hand on head) were performed. The primary outcome measure was the change in the perception of the presented sound in terms of loudness and intrusiveness between baseline and each modulation measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: No overall significant changes were found; however, individual results indicated that five patients presented a clinically relevant change of more than three points out of ten on VAS in terms of hyperacusis after at least one of the executed somatic manoeuvres. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study did not demonstrate an overall significant change in hyperacusis after somatic manoeuvres but does not rule out the possibility of somatic modulation in some hyperacusis patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol of this prospective cross-sectional pilot study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov with registration number NCT04693819.

Sound localization in patients with bilateral vestibulopathy.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate if bilaterally (partially) absent vestibular function during static sound localization testing, would have a negative impact on sound localization skills. Therefore, this study compared horizontal static sound localization skills of normal-hearing patients with bilateral vestibulopathy (BV) and healthy controls. METHODS: Thirteen normal-hearing patients with BV and thirteen age-matched healthy controls were included. Sound localization skills were tested using seven loudspeakers in a frontal semicircle, ranging from - 90° to + 90°. Sound location accuracy was analyzed using the root-mean-square error (RMSE) and the mean absolute error (MAE). To evaluate the severity of the BV symptoms, the following questionnaires were used: Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), Oscillopsia severity questionnaire (OSQ), 12-item Spatial, Speech, and Qualities Questionnaire (SSQ12), and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3). RESULTS: The RMSE and MAE were significantly larger (worse) in the BV group than in the healthy control group, with respective median RMSE of 4.6° and 0°, and a median MAE of 0.7° and 0°. The subjective reporting of speech perception, spatial hearing, and quality of life only demonstrated a moderate correlation between DHI (positive correlation) and HUI total score (negative correlation), and localization scores. CONCLUSION: Static sound localization skills of patients with BV were only mildly worse compared to healthy controls. However, this difference was very small and therefore most likely due to impaired cognitive function. The vestibular system does not seem to have a modulating role in sound localization during static conditions, and its impact is negligible in contrast to the impact of hearing impairment. Furthermore, the subjective reporting of speech perception, spatial hearing, and quality of life was not strongly correlated with localization scores.

Hyperacusis: demographic, audiological, and clinical characteristics of patients at the ENT department.

PURPOSE: To document whether patients with and without hyperacusis differ from each other on demographic, audiological, and clinical characteristics. METHODS: Based on the Hyperacusis Questionnaire's (HQ) cut-off (HQ > 28), a total of 2301 participants were divided into patients with and without hyperacusis. Demographic data, scores on self-reported questionnaires [Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI), Visual Analogue Scale of tinnitus loudness (VASloudness), Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS)], and audiological parameters were retrospectively analysed to determine differential factors between the two groups. RESULTS: In total, 10.9% of the patients was classified as hyperacusis patients (n = 251). They reported a significant, higher tinnitus severity (mean difference of 19 points on TFI) and mental distress (mean difference of 4 points on the HADS subscales) (p < 0.001) than patients without hyperacusis. Moreover, this group consisted of more women (45% % in hyperacusis group vs. 35% in non-hyperacusis group) and women scored significantly higher on the HQ (p < 0.001) and TFI (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients with hyperacusis have distinctive characteristics. The presence of hyperacusis in combination with tinnitus can indicate a higher need for psychoeducation. Patients that present themselves with hyperacusis without tinnitus complaints remain a minority, yet might be underdiagnosed. Hence, future studies should disentangle tinnitus from hyperacusis. In clinical practice, greater efforts are required to increase knowledge about hyperacusis as a primary or secondary complaint and to provide individualized treatment for these patients.

Admission Rates Following Day-Case Major Otologic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether day-case major otologic ear surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to inpatient surgery, while maintaining equal complication rates, and to identify causes of admission after day-case surgery. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic search was conducted. Studies reporting original data on the effect of day-case ear surgery on admission rate, patient satisfaction, and/or postoperative complications were included. Risk of bias of the selected articles was assessed using criteria based on the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 1,734 unique studies were retrieved of which 35 articles discussing 34 studies were eligible for data extraction. The admission rates ranged from 0% to 88% following day-case endaural surgery, 0% to 13% following day-case stapes surgery, 0% to 82% following day-case mastoid surgery, and 0% to 15% following day-case cochlear implant surgery. Patient and parent satisfaction regarding day-case surgery ranged from 67% to 99%. Five studies comparing day-case and inpatient otologic surgery showed no difference in hearing outcome, postoperative complications, or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The highest pooled admission rate was seen following day-case mastoid surgery. Studies comparing day-case and inpatient care suggest hearing results and postoperative complication rates in day-case otologic surgery are similar to inpatient otologic surgery in both children and adults. Therefore, day-case major otologic surgery seems to be a safe and feasible alternative to inpatient surgery for both children and adults.

Guidance for otolaryngology health care workers performing aerosol generating medical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a predilection for infecting the mucosa of the upper and lower airways. Otolaryngologists and supporting health care workers (HCWs) are particularly at high risk of becoming infected while treating patients as many in-office procedures and surgeries are Aerosol Generating Medical Procedures (AGMP). Based on a review of the literature and various guidelines, recommendations are made to mitigate the risk to health care workers of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 while providing clinical care. RECOMMENDATIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic all elective and non-time sensitive Otolaryngology procedures should be deferred to mitigate the risk of transmission of infection to HCWs. For non-AGMPs in all patients, even COVID-19 positive patients Level 1 PPE (surgical mask, gown, gloves and face shield or goggles) is sufficient. If local prevalence is favourable and patients are asymptomatic and test negative for SARS-CoV-2, Level 1 PPE can be used during short duration AGMPs, with limited risk of infected aerosol spread. For AGMPs in patients who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 a minimum of Level 2 PPE, with adequate protection of mucosal surfaces, is recommended (N95/FFP2 respirator, gown, double gloves, goggles or face shield and head cover). For long duration AGMPs that are deemed high-risk in COVID-19 positive patients, Level 3 PPE can provide a higher level of protection and be more comfortable during long duration surgeries if surgical hoods or PAPRs are used. It is recommended that these procedures are performed in negative pressure rooms, if available. It is essential to follow strict donning and doffing protocols to minimize the risk of contamination. CONCLUSIONS: By following strict infection prevention recommendations, the risk of HCWs becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 while treating patients can be minimized. As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves rapidly, these recommendations should serve as guidance and need to be interpreted based on local factors and availability of healthcare resources.

The prognostic value and pathophysiologic significance of three-dimensional fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (3D-FLAIR) magnetic resonance imaging in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The underlying pathophysiology of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is still unknown. However, an increasing number of observational studies report intralabyrinthine signal alterations in patients with ISSNHL using three-dimensional fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (3D-FLAIR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These findings warrant a meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: To conduct a meta-analysis assessing the value of 3D-FLAIR MRI in identifying possible underlying labyrinthine pathophysiologic mechanisms and prognostication in patients with ISSNHL. SEARCH STRATEGY: Two reviewers independently searched the Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library from inception until October 10, 2018 and evaluated eligibility based on titles and abstracts of all retrieved studies. All studies reporting on 3D-FLAIR imaging in ISSNHL were included. Subsequently, the full text of eligible studies were evaluated. EVALUATION METHOD: Adhering to the MOOSE guideline, two independent reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias and evaluated the relevance and quality of evidence. Data on the number of patients and events were extracted and hearing levels were converted to standardised mean differences (SMD) for conducting meta-analyses. Random effects models for meta-analyses were applied. RESULTS: Eight observational studies met our inclusion criteria (n = 638 patients). In 29%, high signal intensity was found on 3D-FLAIR imaging, suggesting labyrinthine pathology (labyrinthitis [79%], intralabyrinthine haemorrhage [21%]). High signal intensity on 3D-FLAIR was associated with poorer hearing (SMD: 14 dB, 95% CI 5.67-22.94) and vertigo (RR: 1.92, 95% CI 1.16-3.17) at baseline. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that patients with high 3D-FLAIR signal intensity had 21 dB lower final hearing pure-tone averages (SMD: 21 dB, 95% CI 9.08-33.24). CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional fluid-attenuated inversion recovery MR imaging can identify an underlying labyrinthine condition in up to 29% of patients with sudden hearing loss in whom previously no cause could be identified. Their final pure-tone averages are more than 20 dB worse than 3D-FLAIR-negative patients, suggesting more severe labyrinthine damage. Findings such as these may contribute to our understanding of pathophysiologic mechanisms of ISSNHL.

Hearing preservation surgery: cochleostomy or round window approach? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: An increasing number of patients with low-frequency residual hearing are fitted with a cochlear implant. The challenge is to optimize cochlear implant device properties and develop atraumatic surgical techniques to preserve residual hearing. In view of the ongoing debate about the optimal procedure for opening the cochlea during cochlear implantation, we reviewed the evidence on the round window and the cochleostomy insertion techniques and compared their effects on postoperative residual hearing. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant studies published up to January 2012. All studies reporting on residual hearing and hearing preservation surgery were included. RESULTS: Sixteen studies, with a total of 170 patients, were included. There were no studies directly comparing both surgical insertion techniques. The methodologic quality of the studies was poor and might be subjected to a high risk of bias. Because there were no studies directly comparing the 2 techniques and controlling for possible influencing factors, differences between studies might also be influenced by intersurgeon variance in many facets regarding cochlear implantation surgery. The available data show a postoperative low-frequency hearing loss ranging from 10 to 30 dB at 125, 250, and 500 Hz, regardless of surgical technique. The number of patients with a postoperative complete hearing preservation ranged from 0% to 40% for the cochleostomy group and from 13% to 59% in the round window group. CONCLUSION: The available data do not show that there is a benefit of one surgical approach over the other regarding the preservation of residual hearing. To provide solid evidence, a double-blind randomized trial is needed, which compares the clinical outcomes, notably the degree of hearing preservation, of both surgical approaches.