A cost-utility analysis of cochlear implants for single sided deafness in adults and children in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Cochlear Implant (CI) has been shown to improve speech comprehension, sound localization and tinnitus in adults with Single-Sided-Deafness (SSD) compared to standard treatment currently available in the Dutch setting such as a CROS (Contralateral Routing of Signals) hearing device or a BCD (Bone Conduction Device). Also, for the pediatric population with SSD, CI has shown to be clinically meaningful. Because currently no information is available on the health economic effects of CI in adults and children with SSD in the Netherlands, a cost-utility analysis was conducted. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model, for both the adult and pediatric SSD population, with three states: implant, no implant, and dead. CI was compared with the Bone Conduction Device (BCD) treatment, requiring surgery and no specific treatment. The time horizon of the model was lifelong, costs were discounted with 3% and effects with 1.5%. A societal perspective was taken, including productivity costs in the analysis, with costing data based on publicly available prices for the Netherlands. Values for clinical outcome parameters, i.e. hearing gain, and event probabilities were based on existing literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses as well as scenario analyses were performed to outline uncertainty of individual and combined parameters. RESULTS: Mean per patient costs for CI in the adult population were €194,051 (95%-CrI €177,274 to €211,108) compared to the total costs of €185,310 (95%-CrI €182,367 to €194,142) for BCD resulting in a cost difference of €8,826 (95%-CrI -€5,020 to €18,252). Compared to no treatment, the cost difference was -€25,089 (95%-CrI -€31,678 to -€6,003). Adults who were treated with CI gained 18.41 (95%-CrI 18.07 to 18.75) quality adjusted life years (QALY) whereas BCD patients gained 15.81 QALYs (95%-CrI 15.53 to 16.10), a difference of 2.60 QALYs (95%-CrI 2.15 to 3.05). The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for adults with CI was determined to be €3,494/QALY gained. Patient without treatment gained 13.46 QALY (95%-CrI 13.20 to 13.73), a difference of 4.95 (95%-CrI 4.87 to 5.01) resulting in CI dominating no treatment. The ICER remained below the Dutch threshold of €20,000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the results. For children, CI dominated when compared to BCD and when compared to no treatment. Compared to BCD, CI led to a cost saving of €29,611 (95%-CrI -€126,800 to €54,375) and compared to no treatment, CI resulted in a cost saving of €57,658 (95%-CrI -€146,687 to €5,919). The incremental QALY gain compared to BCD was 7.22 (95%-CrI 4.19 to 8.55) and 26.03 (95%-CrI 20.82 to 31.06) compared to no treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this health economic evaluation with a Markov cohort model, it is very likely that CI is cost-effective compared to BCD and to no treatment in the Dutch adult and pediatric population with SSD. In both populations the ICER was below the Dutch cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000/QALY.

Canal-wall up cholesteatoma surgery with mastoid obliteration leads to lower rates of disease recurrence without affecting hearing outcomes.

Objectives: The primary objective was to determine whether obliteration of the epitympanic area and mastoid cavity during canal wall up (CWU) cholesteatoma surgery reduces the rate of recurrent and residual cholesteatoma compared to not obliterating the same area. The secondary objective was to compare postoperative hearing outcomes between both techniques. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary referral center. One-hundred-fourty-three ears were included of patients (≥18y) who underwent a CWU tympanomastoidectomy for cholesteatoma with or without bony obliteration between January 2015 and March 2020 in the University Medical Center Utrecht. The median follow-up was respectively 1.4 (IQR 1.1-2.2) vs. 2.0 years (IQR 1.2-3.1) (p = 0.013). Interventions: All patients underwent CWU tympanomastoidectomy for cholesteatoma. For 73 ears bone dust, Bonalive® or a combination was used for obliteration of the mastoid and epitympanic area, the rest of the ears (n = 70) were not obliterated. In accordance with the Dutch protocol, included patients are planned to undergo an MRI scan with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) one, three and five years after surgery to detect recurrent or residual cholesteatoma. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was recurrent and residual cholesteatoma as evaluated by MRI-DWI and/or micro-otoscopy and confirmed by micro-otoscopy and/or revision surgery. The secondary outcome measure was the postoperative hearing. Results: In this cohort, the group treated with canal wall up tympanomastoidectomy with subsequent bony obliteration (73 ears, 51.0%) had significantly lower recurrent (4.1%) and residual (6.8%) cholesteatoma rates than the group without obliteration (70 ears, 25.7% and 20.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between both groups in postoperative bone conduction thresholds (mean difference 2.7 dB, p = 0.221) as well as the mean air-bone gap closure 6 weeks after surgery (2.3 dB in the non-obliteration and 1.5 dB in the obliteration group, p = 0.903). Conclusions: Based on our results, a canal wall up tympanomastoidectomy with bony obliteration is the treatment of choice, since the recurrent and residual disease rate is lower compared to the group without obliteration. The bony obliteration technique does not seem to affect the perceptive or conductive hearing results, as these are similar between both groups.

The cost evaluation of day-case compared to inpatient cochlear implantation in adults: subanalysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the assumption that day-case cochlear implantation is associated with lower costs, compared to inpatient cochlear implantation, while maintaining equal quality of life (QoL) and hearing outcomes, for the Dutch healthcare setting. STUDY DESIGN: A single-center, non-blinded, randomized controlled trial in a tertiary referral center. METHODS: Thirty adult patients with post-lingual bilateral sensorineural hearing loss eligible for unilateral cochlear implantation surgery were randomly assigned to either the day-case or inpatient treatment group (i.e., one night admission). We performed an intention-to-treat evaluation of the difference of the total health care-related costs, hospital and out of hospital costs, between day-case and inpatient cochlear implantation, from a hospital and patient perspective over the course of one year. Audiometric outcomes, assessed using CVC scores, and QoL, assessed using the EQ-5D and HUI3 questionnaires, were taken into account. RESULTS: There were two drop-outs. The total health care-related costs were €41,828 in the inpatient group (n = 14) and €42,710 in the day-case group (n = 14). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 1.2 days (mean costs of €1,069) in the inpatient group and 0.7 days (mean costs of €701) for the day-case group. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative hospital and out of hospital costs. The QoL at 2 months and 1 year postoperative, measured by the EQ-5D index value and HUI3 showed no statistically significant difference. The EQ-5D VAS score measured at 1 year postoperatively was statistically significantly higher in the inpatient group (84/100) than in the day-case group (65/100). There were no differences in postoperative complications, objective hearing outcomes, and number of postoperative hospital and out of hospital visits. CONCLUSION: A day-case approach to cochlear implant surgery does not result in a statistically significant reduction of health care-related costs compared to an inpatient approach and does not affect the surgical outcome (complications and objective hearing measurements), QoL, and postoperative course (number of postoperative hospital and out of hospital visits).

Quality of life, hearing results, patient satisfaction and postoperative complications of day-case versus inpatient unilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a randomized controlled, equivalence trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the hypothesis that day-case cochlear implantation is associated with equal quality of life, hearing benefits and complications rates, compared to inpatient cochlear implantation. STUDY DESIGN: A single-center, non-blinded, randomized controlled, equivalence trial in a tertiary referral center. METHODS: Thirty adult patients with post-lingual bilateral sensorineural hearing loss eligible for unilateral cochlear implantation surgery were randomly assigned to either the day-case or inpatient treatment group. The effect on general quality of life, patient satisfaction, (subjective) hearing improvement, postoperative complications and causes of crossover and/or readmission were assessed using questionnaires, auditory evaluations and patients' charts over a follow-up period of 1 year. RESULTS: Overall quality of life measured by the HUI3 was equal between the day-case (n = 14) and inpatient group (n = 14). The overall patients' satisfaction showed a slight favor towards an inpatient approach. There was no significant difference in the subjective and objective hearing improvement between both treatment groups. During the 1-year follow-up period no major complications occurred. Minor complications occurred intraoperatively in three day-case patients resulting in three out of nine admissions of day-case patients. Other causes of admission of day-case patients were nausea and vomiting (n = 1), drowsiness (n = 1), late scheduled surgery (n = 2), social reasons (n = 1), or due to an unclear reason (n = 1). No patients required readmission. CONCLUSION: We found equal outcomes of QoL, patient satisfaction, objective, and subjective hearing outcomes between day-case and inpatient unilateral cochlear implantation. Nine out of 14 day-case patients were admitted for at least one night postoperatively (crossover). No major complications occurred in both groups. A day-case approach seems feasible when using specific patient selection, surgical planning and the preoperative provision of patient information into account. Besides this, the familiarity with a day-case approach of both patient and the surgical team can increase the feasibility of day-case surgery.

Chronic Meningitis Due to Otitis Media With Cholesteatoma in a Five-Year-Old Child With a Cochlear Implant.

Cochlear implants (CIs) restore hearing in patients with severe-to-profound deafness. Post-CI meningitis is a rare but redoubted complication. We present the case of a five-year-old CI recipient who experienced an episode of chronic meningitis caused by chronic otitis media with cholesteatoma encasing the electrode lead. We hypothesize that the cholesteatoma led to an ascending infection to the cochlea, passing through the labyrinths, resulting in chronic meningitis. Although positive neural responses were initially noted on cochlear electrical stimulation, these responses resolved a few weeks after reimplantation. Our report highlights the importance of careful otoscopic examination and diagnostic work-up in patients presenting with otogenic meningitis to rule out cholesteatoma formation and to ensure prompt surgical exploration if warranted.

Congenital Anomalies of the Ossicular Chain: Surgical and Audiological Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aim to analyze audiometric outcomes of middle ear surgery in patients with congenital middle ear anomalies. METHODS: In this single center retrospective cohort study, audiological outcomes were extracted from patient files. Patients with a congenital middle ear anomaly treated surgically in a tertiary referral center between June 2015 and December 2020 were included. Pre- and postoperative short- and long-term audiometric data (at ≥3 and ≥10 months respectively) were compared to analyze hearing outcomes. RESULTS: Eighteen ears (15 patients) were treated surgically with an exploratory tympanotomy. At short term follow up statistically significant improvements in air conduction thresholds and air-bone gaps were found. Hearing improved in 94.4% (17/18) of operated ears. Successful outcome, defined as an air-bone gap closure to within 20 dB after surgery, was reached in 44.4% (8/18). Serviceable hearing (air conduction ≤30 dB) was reached in 55.6% (10/18). Negative outcome (any significant deterioration in hearing) occurred in 1 patient: in this ear otitis media occurred during the postoperative course. At long term follow up, available for 50% of the cohort, hearing remained stable in 5 ears, improved in 1 ear and deteriorated in 3, all of which underwent revision surgery. Sensorineural hearing loss due to surgery, or other complications, were not encountered. CONCLUSION: middle ear surgery was found to be an effective treatment option to improve hearing in this cohort of patients with congenital middle ear anomalies. Surgical goals of obtained gain in air conduction thresholds and serviceable hearing levels were met by most patients without the occurrence of any iatrogenic sensorineural hearing loss.

Cochlear implantation for tinnitus in adults with bilateral hearing loss: protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Tinnitus is the perception of sound without an external stimulus, often experienced as a ringing or buzzing sound. Subjective tinnitus is assumed to origin from changes in neural activity caused by reduced or lack of auditory input, for instance due to hearing loss. Since auditory deprivation is thought to be one of the causes of tinnitus, increasing the auditory input by cochlear implantation might be a possible treatment. In studies assessing cochlear implantation for patients with hearing loss, tinnitus relief was seen as a secondary outcome. Therefore, we will assess the effect of cochlear implantation in patients with primarily tinnitus complaints. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: In this randomised controlled trial starting in January 2021 at the ENT department of the UMC Utrecht (the Netherlands), patients with a primary complaint of tinnitus will be included. Fifty patients (Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) >32, Beck's Depression Index <19, pure tone average at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz: bilateral threshold between 50 and ≤75 dB) will be randomised towards cochlear implantation or no intervention. Primary outcome of the study is tinnitus burden as measured by the TFI. Outcomes of interest are tinnitus severity, hearing performances (tinnitus pitch and loudness, speech perception), quality of life, depression and patient-related changes. Outcomes will be evaluated prior to implantation and at 3 and 6 months after the surgery. The control group will receive questionnaires at 3 and 6 months after randomisation. We expect a significant difference between the cochlear implant recipients and the control group for tinnitus burden. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht (NL70319.041.19, V5.0, January 2021). The trial results will be made accessible to the public in a peer-review journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial registration number NL8693; Pre-results.

Sound therapy for cochlear implant users with tinnitus.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the positive effect of a cochlear implant (CI) on tinnitus in many patients, tinnitus remains a problem for a significant proportion of CI users. We investigated the acceptability and effect of sound therapy (a combination of natural background sounds and one concise tinnitus counselling session) on tinnitus and speech perception in CI users who still experienced tinnitus during CI use. DESIGN AND STUDY SAMPLE: Thirty-two CI users (32-78 years) participated in phase 1: a test at the clinic to evaluate six background sounds provided by the sound processor. Eighteen out of the 32 CI users participated in phase 2: an optional take-home evaluation of 2 weeks without sound therapy, followed by 5 weeks with sound therapy, ending with an evaluation visit. RESULTS: Thirty subjects (93.8%) found at least one background sound acceptable. In phase 2, a small improvement with sound therapy was found for tinnitus loudness, annoyance, and intrusiveness. 50% of the subjects subjectively reported benefit of sound therapy. Especially the sense of control on their tinnitus was highly appreciated. No detrimental effect on speech perception was observed. CONCLUSION: The background sounds were acceptable and provided tinnitus relief in some CI users with tinnitus during CI use.

Hearing loss in patients with mucopolysaccharidoses-1 and -6 after hematopoietic cell transplantation: A longitudinal analysis.

Hearing loss is frequently seen in mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) patients. Although hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) increases overall survival, disease progression is observed in certain tissues. This study describes the course of hearing loss (HL) over time in transplanted MPS patients. Transplanted MPS patients between 2003 and 2018 were included and received yearly audiological evaluation, including auditory brainstem response (ABR) or pure tone audiometry (PTA). Twenty-eight MPS-1 and four MPS-6 patients were analyzed with a median follow-up of 5 years (range 11 months-16 years). Air conduction threshold improved significantly over time (P < .001) with a PTA 1-year post-HCT of 50 ± 0.7 dB to 23 ± 11 dB 13 years post-HCT. Bone conduction threshold worsened with a PTA 1 year post-HCT of 10 ± 7 dB to 18 ± 9 dB 13 years post-HCT (P = .34). The degree of HL varied from mainly mild-severe early after HCT to normal-mild at longer follow-up. The type of HL consisted of mainly conductive in the first years post-HCT in contrast to mainly sensorineural at longer follow-up. MRIs of the cerebellopontine angle did not show abnormalities. HL is still seen in patients with MPS despite HCT and consists of a conductive type early after HCT in contrast to a sensorineural type at longer follow-up in the majority of cases. Yearly follow-up of HL is necessary to timely intervene, as hearing is important in the speech and language development of children and their academic achievements.

Cochlear Implant Receiver Location and Migration: Experimental Validation Pilot Study of a Clinically Applicable Screening Method.

Objectives: Postoperative follow-up after cochlear implantation lacks a reliable screening method to detect cochlear implant receiver device migration. This study aims to validate a clinically applicable method to assess the position and migration of the cochlear implant receiver device. Study design: Validation study. Setting: Tertiary university medical center. Participants and method: To assess the cochlear implant receiver device location, round markers representing the external magnet were placed on both sides of the head of volunteers. Four independent clinicians took measurements of the distances between reference points on the head and the center of the marker. The reference points were: the lateral canthus (LC), tragus tip (TT), the mastoid angle (MA), and the mandibular angle (AM). Main outcome measures: The inter-clinician reliability was determined by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and confidence interval (CI) with a two-way mixed model and both consistency and absolute agreement types for each distance. Results: Eight volunteers were included resulting in 16 individual cases. The consistency type ICC's for each reference point were: LC 0.90 (CI = 0.80, 0.96), TT 0.83 (CI = 0.69, 0.93), MA 0.75 (CI = 0.56, 0.89), and AM 0.29 (CI = 0.05, 0.59). The absolute agreement ICC's were: LC 0.87 (CI = 0.73, 0.95), TT 0.83 (CI = 0.68, 0.93), MA 0.68 (CI = 0.42, 0.86), and AM 0.18 (CI = 0.01, 0.46). The inter-clinician reliability was good to excellent for the lateral canthus and tragus tip reference points. Conclusions: The cochlear receiver device location can be assessed reliably by measuring the distance between the LC, TT, and the external magnet. This method can be used to registrate implant receiver location after implantation and detect implant migration postoperatively.

Objective and Subjective Measures of Simultaneous vs Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implants in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To date, no randomized clinical trial on the comparison between simultaneous and sequential bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) has been performed. Objective: To investigate the hearing capabilities and the self-reported benefits of simultaneous BiCIs compared with those of sequential BiCIs. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted between January 12, 2010, and September 2, 2012, at 5 tertiary referral centers among 40 participants eligible for BiCIs. Main inclusion criteria were postlingual severe to profound hearing loss, age 18 to 70 years, and a maximum duration of 10 years without hearing aid use in both ears. Data analysis was conducted from May 24 to June 12, 2016. Interventions: The simultaneous BiCI group received 2 cochlear implants during 1 surgical procedure. The sequential BiCI group received 2 cochlear implants with an interval of 2 years between implants. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, the results 1 year after receiving simultaneous BiCIs were compared with the results 1 year after receiving sequential BiCIs. Second, the results of 3 years of follow-up for both groups were compared separately. The primary outcome measure was speech intelligibility in noise from straight ahead. Secondary outcome measures were speech intelligibility in noise from spatially separated sources, speech intelligibility in silence, localization capabilities, and self-reported benefits assessed with various hearing and quality of life questionnaires. Results: Nineteen participants were randomized to receive simultaneous BiCIs (11 women and 8 men; median age, 52 years [interquartile range, 36-63 years]), and another 19 participants were randomized to undergo sequential BiCIs (8 women and 11 men; median age, 54 years [interquartile range, 43-64 years]). Three patients did not receive a second cochlear implant and were unavailable for follow-up. Comparable results were found 1 year after simultaneous or sequential BiCIs for speech intelligibility in noise from straight ahead (difference, 0.9 dB [95% CI, -3.1 to 4.4 dB]) and all secondary outcome measures except for localization with a 30° angle between loudspeakers (difference, -10% [95% CI, -20.1% to 0.0%]). In the sequential BiCI group, all participants performed significantly better after the BiCIs on speech intelligibility in noise from spatially separated sources and on all localization tests, which was consistent with most of the participants' self-reported hearing capabilities. Speech intelligibility-in-noise results improved in the simultaneous BiCI group up to 3 years following the BiCIs. Conclusions and Relevance: This study shows comparable objective and subjective hearing results 1 year after receiving simultaneous BiCIs and sequential BiCIs with an interval of 2 years between implants. It also shows a significant benefit of sequential BiCIs over a unilateral cochlear implant. Until 3 years after receiving simultaneous BiCIs, speech intelligibility in noise significantly improved compared with previous years. Trial Registration: trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR1722.

Effect of day-case unilateral cochlear implantation in adults on general and disease-specific quality of life, postoperative complications and hearing results, tinnitus, vertigo and cost-effectiveness: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implantation is an increasingly common procedure in the treatment of severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in children and adults. It is often performed as a day-case procedure. The major drive towards day-case surgery has been from a logistical, economical and societal perspective, but we also speculate that the patient's quality of life (QoL) is at least equal to inpatient surgery if not increased as a result of rapid discharge and rehabilitation. Even though cochlear implantation seems well suited to a day-case approach and this even seems to be common practice in some countries, evidence is scarce and of low quality to guide us towards the preferred treatment option. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A single-centre, non-blinded, randomised, controlled trial was designed to (primarily) investigate the effect on general QoL of day-case cochlear implantation compared to inpatient cochlear implantation and (secondarily) the effect of both methods on (subjective) hearing improvement, disease-specific QoL, tinnitus, vertigo and cost-effectiveness. 30 adult patients with severe to profound bilateral postlingual SNHL who are eligible for unilateral cochlear implantation will be randomly assigned to either the day-case or inpatient treatment group. The outcome measures will be assessed using auditory evaluations, questionnaires (preoperatively, at 1-week, 3-week, 3-month and 1-year follow-up) and costs diaries (weekly during the first month postoperatively, after which once in a month until 1-year follow-up). Preoperative and postoperative outcomes will be compared. The difference in costs and benefit will be represented using the incremental cost utility/effectiveness ratio. The analyses will be carried out on an intention-to-treat basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the UMC Utrecht (NL45590.041.13; V.5, November 2015). The trial results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4464; Pre-results.

Comparison of Bilateral and Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The cost of bilateral cochlear implantation (BCI) is usually not reimbursed by insurance companies because of a lack of well-designed studies reporting the benefits of a second cochlear implant. OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefits of simultaneous BCI compared with unilateral cochlear implantation (UCI) in adults with postlingual deafness. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter randomized clinical trial was performed. The study took place in 5 Dutch tertiary referral centers: the University Medical Centers of Utrecht, Maastricht, Groningen, Leiden, and Nijmegen. Forty patients eligible for cochlear implantation met the study criteria and were included from January 12, 2010, through November 2, 2012. The main inclusion criteria were postlingual onset of hearing loss, age of 18 to 70 years, duration of hearing loss of less than 20 years, and a marginal hearing aid benefit. Two participants withdrew from the study before implantation. Nineteen participants were randomized to undergo UCI and 19 to undergo BCI. INTERVENTIONS: The BCI group received 2 cochlear implants during 1 surgery. The UCI group received 1 cochlear implant. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Utrecht Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (speech in noise, both presented from straight ahead). Secondary outcomes were consonant-vowel-consonant words in silence, speech-intelligibility test with spatially separated sources (speech in noise from different directions), sound localization, and quality of hearing questionnaires. Before any data were collected, the hypothesis was that the BCI group would perform better on the objective and subjective tests that concerned speech intelligibility in noise and spatial hearing. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were included in the study. Fifteen patients in the BCI group used hearing aids before implantation compared with 19 in the UCI group. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between the groups' baseline characteristics. At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between groups on the Utrecht Sentence Test with Adaptive Randomized Roving levels (9.1 dB, UCI group; 8.2 dB, BCI group; P = .39) or the consonant-vowel-consonant test (median percentage correct score 85.0% in the UCI group and 86.8% in the BCI group; P = .21). The BCI group performed significantly better than the UCI group when noise came from different directions (median speech reception threshold in noise, 14.4 dB, BCI group; 5.6 dB, BCI group; P <.001). The BCI group was better able to localize sounds (median correct score of 50.0% at 60°, UCI group; 96.7%, BCI group; P <.001). These results were consistent with the patients' self-reported hearing capabilities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This randomized clinical trial demonstrates a significant benefit of simultaneous BCI above UCI in daily listening situations for adults with postlingual deafness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR1722.

The disease recurrence rate after the canal wall up or canal wall down technique in adults.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To review which type of cholesteatoma surgery, canal wall up (CWU) or canal wall down (CWD), provides the lowest risk for residual and/or recurrent disease in adults with primary acquired cholesteatoma. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science. STUDY DESIGN: We selected articles comparing CWU with CWD, reporting on disease recidivism (combined residual and recurrent disease) or independent residual or disease recurrence rates. We included studies with a moderate to high relevance. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,060 articles. We selected seven studies that carried a moderate risk of bias. Six studies described higher disease recidivism after the CWU procedure [16.7-61.0%] compared to the CWD technique [0-13.2%]. Four studies showed statistical significant difference (P < .05). One study showed opposite results: recidivism was found in 7.8% CWU and in 22.1% CWD cases (P < .001). Studies showed CWU recidivism more likely to be residual disease, whereas CWD recidivism tended to be recurrent disease. CONCLUSION: The majority of included studies showed CWU to result in more disease recidivism compared to the CWD technique in adult patients with a primary acquired cholesteatoma. If recidivism risk is the most important factor to consider a certain surgical technique, we recommend application of the CWD procedure. However, many additional factors in patient care will define the best treatment decision, such as residual hearing and access to health care. Our recommendations are based on Level II evidence, which underlines the need for future high-level evidence studies.

Effect of unilateral and simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation on tinnitus: A Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine the effect of cochlear implantation on tinnitus perception in patients with severe bilateral postlingual sensorineural hearing loss and to demonstrate possible differences between unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. METHODS: Thirty-eight adult patients were included in this prospective study, as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial investigating the benefits of bilateral cochlear implantation versus unilateral cochlear implantation. Pre- and postoperative tinnitus perception scores were evaluated, before and 1 year after implantation on three tinnitus questionnaires; the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), the Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ), and a visual analogue scale for tinnitus burden. RESULTS: Before implantation, the tinnitus prevalence was 42.1% (16 of 38) in the whole study group. One year after implantation, the tinnitus questionnaire scores had decreased in 71.4% according to the TQ and 80.0% according to the THI. Tinnitus was induced after cochlear implantation in six patients, five in the bilateral and one in the unilateral group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that cochlear implantation is effective in the reduction of tinnitus in patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss who suffered from preoperative tinnitus. Conversely, tinnitus may also increase or even be induced by the cochlear implantation itself. Cochlear implant candidates should be well informed about these possible consequences before undergoing surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.

Influence of Ossicular Chain Damage on Hearing After Chronic Otitis Media and Cholesteatoma Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Physicians should ideally be able to provide patients with chronic otitis media and/or cholesteatoma specific information about postoperative hearing outcome, based on their level of preoperative ossicular chain damage (OCD). OBJECTIVE: To identify the influence of preoperative OCD on hearing outcomes in patients after chronic otitis media and/or cholesteatoma surgery. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for available evidence, without any constraints, on December 13, 2014, for articles published between January 1, 1975, and December 13, 2014. STUDY SELECTION: We reviewed the literature for articles assessing the prognostic value of OCD on postoperative hearing outcome (air-bone gap [ABG] in decibels), using Austin-Kartush criteria or independent OCD classification systems. We assessed relevance and validity using a self-designed critical appraisal tool based on the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. DATA EXTRACTION: Characteristics of study populations and postoperative ABGs in decibels were extracted from all included studies by 4 authors (E.F.B., M.N.G., N.J.K., A.S.H.J.L.). RESULTS: The tested hypothesis was formulated before data collection. Primary study outcome was defined as postoperative adult hearing outcomes after COM and/or cholesteatoma surgery defined as mean postoperative ABG. Our search yielded 5661 articles. Nine articles with high relevance were included. Pooled results of studies using the Austin-Kartush criteria showed a significant (P < .001) difference in mean ABG in favor of group B, when comparing group B (patients with malleus present, stapes absent; 11.1 [95% CI, 10.3-11.8] dB) to group C (patients with malleus absent, stapes present; 15.7 [95% CI, 14.6-16.7] dB) and group B to group D (patients with malleus absent, stapes absent; 16.5 [95% CI, 15.2-17.9] dB). Three studies using independent OCD classification criteria found no influence of stapes structure (intact stapes suprastructure, 13.5 [95% CI, 10.3-16.7], 15.1 [95% CI, 11.8-18.3], and 21.9 [95% CI, 15.0-28.8] dB vs absent stapes structure, 12.8 [95% CI, 9.5-16.1], 19.5 [95% CI, 14.9-24.1], and 30.2 [95% CI, 24.7-35.8] dB) on postoperative ABG. One study reported a significant (P = .04) difference in mean ABG between patients with present (18.9 [95% CI, 15.7-22.1] dB) and absent (24.4 [95% CI, 20.2-28.6] dB) malleus. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Pooled results of Austin-Kartush studies showed that in patients with COM, with or without cholesteatoma, the malleus status is a significant predictor of postoperative hearing outcome, independent of the stapes condition. Studies reporting on individual ossicle status supported this finding by showing that only malleus condition influenced postoperative hearing outcome. These findings are based on level IV evidence, which indicates the need for future high-level evidence studies.

Systematic review of the use of bone cement in ossicular chain reconstruction and revision stapes surgery.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the effectiveness of bone cement on mean postoperative air-bone gap (ABG) and the proportion of ABG closure to within 20 dB in patients undergoing ossicular chain reconstruction or revision stapes surgery. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and Central. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted. Studies reporting original study data were included. Relevance and risk of bias (RoB) of the selected articles were assessed. Studies with low relevance, high RoB, or both were excluded. Mean differences, risk differences, and their 95% confidence intervals were extracted for the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Twelve studies with high relevance and moderate RoB were included for data extraction. Seven of these were two-armed studies, and five were one-armed studies. ABG closure to within 20 dB was assessed in 11 studies and achieved in 60% to 94% of patients who were treated with bone cement. Mean ABG closure ranged from 15 dB to 23 dB in patients treated with bone cement across 11 studies. Most of the two-armed studies did not show a statistically significant difference between the use of bone cement and various conventional rebridging techniques, including allograft or autograft interposition and partial ossicular replacement prosthesis. CONCLUSION: There is no sufficient evidence to support superiority of use of bone cement compared to conventional techniques. It seems from the available evidence that bone cement does not underachieve in ossiculoplasty compared to conventional rebridging techniques.